Re: compatibility matrix for /usr/share/common-licenses

"Serafeim Zanikolas" <[email protected]> Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:38:57 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Tue Jul 16, 2024 at 12:10 AM CEST, Francesco Poli wrote:
[..]

> If this is an actual concern (on a second thought, I personally think
> it could be!), some more explicit warning could be added to the
[..]
> Perhaps the background section should be clearer on this.
> And a FAQ could be added.

I've added a note in the background, a comment in the MPL-2 entry, and an
additional FAQ entry.

> Personally, I cannot see anything else that needs to be fixed
> in the [current] version of the technical note. I think it is
> 'adequately' fit for its purpose...   ;-)

thanks, changed your review status to approved.

> I hope that the technical note, once finalized, gets included in
> package 'adequate', under the same license as the rest of package
> (Expat).

I haven't thought about licensing (the irony!). Expat sgtm.

> Also, do you plan to automatically extract the incompatibility matrix
> from the technical note itself? That would prevent the matrix (as used
> by the "adequate" command) from ever becoming inconsistent with the
> documented matrix (as found in the technical note)...

I guess I could move it to the main branch, although I'm not sure that I'd
bother with technically enforcing the consistency. the nice thing of having it
in a separate branch is that one can subscribe to the branch RSS feed from salsa
without having to be notified about changes in the adequate code.

thanks,
Serafeim

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)