Re: Please review new license summaries for Debian
Andrey Rakhmatullin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 12:54:11PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: >I wondered myself why there is a Stand-alone-license stanza [1] in >d/copyright files, when it is a well known standard license. Even for standard licenses you need to repeat several lines if you don't use standalone stanzas. >Are there any policy recommendations about how to handle that? No. The policy bugs are #904729 and #883950. >Would you say that the example [2] I was pointing to is simply wrong and >should be handled otherwise? It's very rare to not include a license grant and to not spell out explicitly whether you can use later versions of the license beyond the indentifier, even if there may be no explicit requirement for either in the policy. Also "the full text of the GNU General Public License v3.0 only" is funny. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 894 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEtf6ieDcfC1EgtGkao+OWn23e7IYFAmowBB4tFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEKPjlp9t3uyG AU0QANFgrxi3m50tE3gneOsRc0sbe+egheRsrAniYnHncGH7Mk8Tbz6sZXZNI00K jZ818d2bCd7OMr7A7cOqA0GMU1DCcwsteJ2SeDSdvgvuSBQqIcsdGiNH+lgeL1+/ JVz/jOOVCzKi+Yg3/lI8qW+dZIJui/YTeF6WDXqNBshnTB7yKqB+Z3hTg1UIZ82/ Z1VUbDi1BCJzL2T1JEcb4MZh44ZszQg2dXBtXva1uRirUKBNzb2qtn5UHM7A7Hnr XboMHVve4GJhPobMZ7uxABOBtCAVa3P54FDtcPboOcDLveORd8RMyoXHYqaRFY8r YDX1jcank4+BmJgfZMSWfhkpU8hGsjAN6wvAyBZRg5FpKRZiVt+T14PvtHfkL/2z 6vzJwZ2NBv/lZesgq3H4FO4CF2Qecp+RQsBV0c+m+tgor2mau4sE8ElVIruPySFL 6owF6clH/ZYLG9PAHzBliKnRinNqfs3t7ciPLqC9+LInw9td2nSlwaY1y2rV/GYc BDWwbBtK1eWTH8FG1+Ap09yiiXoC/ponHT5Z7EGWdt865BqjpvMkt0SnuMlVrIkk IY1lVPy3nJ+fkWMU0yMgUVLKHmyIYxXG0mJdDzeQgAdN7Xd2A6+i8R+VbYigro/N bzkD9FevAKqiPhtRq/iWI5323CKKErIVQk1JyDtZcTuzhC92 =fj5y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----