Technically it would be the simplest, but there's a process for policy changes that's more involved than writing emails to d-devel. I'm suggesting you engage with it on this topic if you want the results of your work to be usable in Debian.
Scott K On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:27:19 PM EST Stephan Lachnit wrote: > The easy solution would just be allow both. Either only a single file with > verbatim text or an SPDX document with licenses in a separate folder. > > Regards, > Stephan > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2022, 19:12 Scott Kitterman, <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 12:53:22 PM EST Stephan Lachnit wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > Since Debian policy requires verbatim copies of licenses (or links to > > > > /usr/ > > > > share/common-licenses), I think any policy compliant debian/copyright > > > > will > > > > > > have to be human readable, but I'm not that familiar with SPDX, so > > > > maybe > > > > > > it > > > > will surprise me. > > > > > > You can find an example in my initial mail [1]. > > > > > > > I would be good to understand how this proposal supports Debian > > > > Policy. > > > > > > It would require a minor change: putting the verbatim license texts in > > > a single file is not possible anymore. But I don't why just copying > > > the licenses to "/usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/licenses/LICENSE" in addition > > > to the SPDX formatted debian/copyright would be any worse than the > > > current way. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Stephan > > > > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/01/msg00309.html > > > > Personally, I don't view that as a minor change. > > > > I think before starting a DEP on this you ought to work out the policy > > implications. Currently any package using your proposed approach would be > > instantly RC buggy. > > > > Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
