Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses

May 07th, 2012 - 06:40 am ET by Andrea Veri | Report spam

Hi,

while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL)
within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team
having the following rationale:

"the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses,
thus the full text has to be added into debian/copyright."

Since the MPL is not a short license [1], we decided to handle the
current situation by linking the license to a static file included in
the /usr/share/doc/xul-ext-packagename directory this way:

"License: MPL-1.1
The complete text of the Mozilla Public License can be found in
the `MPL' file in the same directory as this file."

We, then, received another reject. So, what's the working solution for
these kind of cases? is it including the full text of the license a
bit of a non-sense when we can directly link back to a static file?
what's the rationale behind including the full license? why the
relevant bug report [2] has been started back in 2008 but as of today,
has still no decision?

Thanks in advance,

Andrea

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr...bug=487201





To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120507103358.GA30783@debian.org
email Follow the discussionReplies 19 repliesReplies Make a reply

Replies

#1 Igor Pashev
May 07th, 2012 - 06:50 am ET | Report spam
07.05.2012 14:33, Andrea Veri пишет:
Hi,

while packaging a few extensions (mainly licensed under the MPL)
within the pkg-mozext team we received a few rejects from the FTP Team
having the following rationale:

"the MPL license is not installed under /usr/share/common-licenses,
thus the full text has to be added into debian/copyright."

Since the MPL is not a short license [1], we decided to handle the
current situation by linking the license to a static file included in
the /usr/share/doc/xul-ext-packagename directory this way:

"License: MPL-1.1
The complete text of the Mozilla Public License can be found in
the `MPL' file in the same directory as this file."

We, then, received another reject. So, what's the working solution for
these kind of cases? is it including the full text of the license a
bit of a non-sense when we can directly link back to a static file?
what's the rationale behind including the full license? why the
relevant bug report [2] has been started back in 2008 but as of today,
has still no decision?

Thanks in advance,

Andrea

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr...i?bugH7201




I think now it's the best to include full text into debian/copyright.
Until (if ever) MPL included in base-files.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/

Similar topics