Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.pro> writes: > W: libfoobar source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gpl-2+ > (paragraph at line X) > > Should lintian ignore the '+' suffix when determining if a License > paragraph exists?
Your position, if I understand correctly, is that the trailing “+” should not be considered part of the license name; it should instead be considered part of the license grant. That's a position I agree with. Perhaps we should progress bug#786470 <URL:https://bugs.debian.org/786470> and clarify the distinction between the license grant and license conditions. Lintian is presently doing the right thing according to the copyright format specification 1.0, I believe. The trailing “+” is not distinguished in that specification; a plain reading of the specification has that just as another character in the license name. Part of that revision to the specification should then be to make clear that the License-Grant field grants a set of licenses to the recipient; the License field specifies the effective license conditions on the work; and a trailing “+” is to be interpreted as a special non-name character that modifies the set of license conditions granted. I think the proposed change to Lintian would not be appropriate until after the change to policy's specification of the copyright file, to make explicit the effect of “+”. That policy change could be part of resolving bug#786470. -- \ “I used to be an airline pilot. I got fired because I kept | `\ locking the keys in the plane. They caught me on an 80 foot | _o__) stepladder with a coathanger.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
