On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:08:19PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > In this simple example there is no ambiguity, but only > because it is assumed that the package is licensed > entirely under one license. That wasn't the assumption I was making... > The easiest alternative source is the the stanza that is > just above the one where the License field is missing. > However, the DEP 5 format is inspired by the Debian > control file format, that does not have a concept of field > inheritance between stanzas, so we may break the principle > of least surprise. ...that is similar to the one I was making: that the last matching License definition paired with a Files: definition which matched would apply, e.g. 'Files: *' if provided. (Not just the last definition, which could be anything). A closer reading of the DEP-5 wording clears this up for me: However it makes for easier reading if the copyright file lists the “main” license first: the one matching the “top level” of the work, with others listed as exceptions. To allow this, the following precedence rule applies for matching files: If multiple Files declarations match the same file, then only the last match counts. So as it stands, no inheritance is possible, and every Files: line must be accompanied by a Copyright: and a License: line. -- Jon Dowland
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature