Re: Copyright format “License” field: grant of license, license text?

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:

> Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2015-05-21 09:50:48)
> > Related to this is the BSD notice style, which I personally don't
> > feel comfortable altering in any way. To me, it looks like the
> > copyright line, the "Allrights reserved" line and the license must
> > be reproduced verbatim as a single block. Do you think it could be
> > split into the various existing and proposed fields?

I agree with Jonas that the “must reproduce [these things] in the […]
other materials provided with the distribution” is satisfied by
reproducing them in the ‘debian/copyright’.

Separating them into two fields, related to the same work in that file,
complies with the conditions, I think.

> > Copyright (c) <years>, <copyright holders>
> > All rights reserved.

I agree with Jonas that the “all rights reserved” is not required. It is
legally null (anything it might do is already done without any text;
also, it is directly contradicted in the next paragraph by the release
of some rights). It is a cargo-cult inclusion in the text. Therefore it
can be deleted without harm.

> > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> > are met:
> > 
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > 
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

So the BSD 2-clause (attribution) text I think can be formatted with
“License-Grant” thus::

    Files: libflonk/*
    Copyright:
        © 2007–2012 Flonk L. Flonkerstein
        © 2004–2008 Eduard K. Engelbert
    License-Grant:
        Eduard and Flonk wish you a good day, and hereby grant you
        license to redistribute this work freely under the conditions of
        the license in the file LICENSE.
    License: BSD-2-clause

    License: BSD-2-clause
        Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
        modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
        are met:
        .
        1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
           notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
        .
        2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
           notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
           the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
           distribution.
        .

> I guess it is 2. in above that you [Thibaut] feel dictates keeping
> copyright and licensing together. I believe it only dictates
> reproducing copyright and licensing verbatim, which is satisfied even
> if separately.

Yes. In my opinion:

* The “above copyright notice” is the statement that copyright is held
  since particular years by specific persons. Reformatting (to use the
  correct copyright symbol) does not harm the meaning or effect.

* The “list of conditions” extends from the “Redistribution and use […]
  are permitted […]” paragraph to the end of the numbered conditions.

* The “following disclaimer” is the warranty disclaimer.

* Reproducing them “together” is satisfied by putting them in clearly
  related fields within the ‘debian/copyright’ file.

* The “All rights reserved.” sentence is not required by the conditions,
  is contradictory to the rest of the text, and can safely be omitted.

So the above ‘debian/copyright’ paragraphs are machine-parseable and
satisfy the BSD 2-clause (attribution) license conditions.

-- 
 \     Lucifer: “Just sign the Contract, sir, and the Piano is yours.” |
  `\     Ray: “Sheesh! This is long! Mind if I sign it now and read it |
_o__)                                later?” —http://www.achewood.com/ |
Ben Finney