Re: Please review new license summaries for Debian

On Monday, 15 June 2026 14:39:37 Central European Summer Time Daniel Baumann wrote:
> how about moving from license 'summaries' to 'references' instead?

Section "6.7. License" of https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ mentions «If there are no remaining lines, then all of the short names or short names followed by license exceptions in the synopsis must be described in stand-alone License stanzas. Otherwise, this field should either include the full text of the license(s) or include a pointer to the license file under /usr/share/common-licenses.»

I agree that your reference fields provides the required information, albeit, outside of License field, in a way that may be seen as terse.

I can add support for this references fields once it's mentioned in copyright-format documentation. 

Until then, references field is handled by cme as any comment field, i.e. accepted as is.

All the best

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=/Ciz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----