Bug#815308: streamlining license version "or later" version syntax
On 21/02/16 05:52, Ben Finney wrote:
> Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> writes:
>
>> W: libfoobar source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gpl-2+
>> (paragraph at line X)
>>
>> Should lintian ignore the '+' suffix when determining if a License
>> paragraph exists?
>
> Your position, if I understand correctly, is that the trailing “+”
> should not be considered part of the license name; it should instead be
> considered part of the license grant.
>
Yes, that would be a reasonable way to explain it.
> That's a position I agree with. Perhaps we should progress bug#786470
> <URL:https://bugs.debian.org/786470> and clarify the distinction between
> the license grant and license conditions.
>
> Lintian is presently doing the right thing according to the copyright
> format specification 1.0, I believe. The trailing “+” is not
> distinguished in that specification; a plain reading of the
> specification has that just as another character in the license name.
>
> Part of that revision to the specification should then be to make clear
> that the License-Grant field grants a set of licenses to the recipient;
> the License field specifies the effective license conditions on the
> work; and a trailing “+” is to be interpreted as a special non-name
> character that modifies the set of license conditions granted.
>
> I think the proposed change to Lintian would not be appropriate until
> after the change to policy's specification of the copyright file, to
> make explicit the effect of “+”. That policy change could be part of
> resolving bug#786470.
>
OK, if you feel the current wording of the policy does not permit this,
the change can wait
Should the BTS record that 786470 blocks 815308?
In the meantime, people should override the lintian warning or they
should duplicate the license paragraph if they have this situation?
Reply to: