Bug#649679: [copyright-format] Clarify what distinguishes files and stand-alone license paragraphs.

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:25:37AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:12:52AM +0100, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 
> > I am sometimes using an extra Source field in some Files paragraphs, when
> > they define works that are not the creation of the main authors,
> > especially when it was difficult to find their original upstream location.
> 
> Why use the same field name (Source) in the Files paragraphs as in the
> header paragraph when this is not defined - instead of using, say,
> 'Component-Source' (or even just 'Comment')?  Have you proposed making this
> use of Source part of the standard?  If so I'm afraid I missed that.

I used the same name to imply that the meaning and syntax is the similar as the
header paragraph's Source field.  By the way I also sometimes used an
additional “Name” field in the same files paragraphs.

But this is purely exploratory.  I do not mean to propose this use for the
current standard.  Before making any such proposition, I think that a real-life
use case would be needed, that would go beyond data collection for the sake of it.

I like that the spec is not too restrictive, so that experimentations are easy.
But I understand the counter-arguments as well.

Cheers,

-- 
Charles