Hi Daniel sorry for the late answer (just back from vacation) On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 01:25:18PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On 10/22/2009 12:24 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Make sure to verify if that newer revision of policy is then followed. > > Yeah, it looks like it is compatible. The current revision (59) is > pretty simple stuff, and we generate pretty simple stuff. this is good! > > I've committed the change to the versioned URL. Many thanks for makeing the change! > One final thought, as i'm looking at this stuff: i'm not sure why we > want the X-Comment: sub-sections per license, instead of just including > the location of the license in the body directly? Is this recommended > somewhere? No it's not recomended anywhere. Here my thought about it: the License-Section contains the License-Text. The "Comment" is not part of the License, but points where the license-text can be found. Thus I moved this part into the "extra field" part (see section in DEP5 "extra fields"). Many thanks Daniel, Bests Salvatore
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature