On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:40:33AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > This is "(copyright) and (distribution license)", where "copyright" > > should be understood as "copyright statement". > > It sounds like you may have been reading this as "(copyright and > > distribution) license". > Yes. I don't see any other reading being consistent with the > commonly-held view [0] that Policy does *not* prescribe collecting and > duplicating copyright notices into the copyright file. Ehm, the two links you've cited in this thread don't talk at all about what Policy does or doesn't require for the contents of the copyright file. One talks about interpretation of the requirements of the BSD license. The other steps back and takes a look at the underlying reasons we have copyright files. Neither advances an interpretation of this clause in Policy. > > It's an understandable mistake since the wording is ambiguous, but > > this interpretation is ruled out because "copyright license and > > distribution license" doesn't make sense as a pairing. > I think it does make sense. License to copy and license to distribute > can be discussed separately, so I don't see a problem with speaking > explicitly about both. "License to copy" is not what it says. It says "copyright". Copyright *covers* distribution. You're twisting the words to fit your preconception of what the text should say. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature