Re: Bug#885698: Bug#1135097: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Bill Allombert <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Message-ID <afHXYdsMN8Ik3BqT@seventeen>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:38:49AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Is there objections to using SPDX abbreviations for the file names of
> licenses in base-files?
> 
> I didn't double-check if that's in the proposal, but I think that's how
> it should be done.
> 
> If we already deviate from SPDX names, then maybe moving existing files
> to SPDX-names, and recommending use of those names, and set up a symlink
> would be an improvement.  Or grandfather in them as exceptions, to avoid
> unnecessary debian/copyright churn.
> 
> It would be nice if SPDX names was mentioned in debian-policy or
> base-files/debian/README.source, so we don't forget about this aspect in
> the future.  We can always change that policy later on if it turns out
> to be a bad idea for some reason (if someone registers FOO`rm -rf /` as
> a SPDX license name, perhaps).

More generally we could have two packages:
base-files with /usr/share/common-licenses/
and a new package
spdx-license with /usr/share/spdx-licenses/ with all SPDX license used by Debian.
and have a tool that build debian/copyright from spdx-license at build time, so
spdx-license would only be needed when building packages.

Cheers,
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.