[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEP-5: query about possible inheritence of License:

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:08:19PM +0900, Charles Plessy
> 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

Reply to: