Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
Craig Small <email@example.com> writes:
> I actually second Bernd's comments. It seems uneccessarily complex and
> so very much harder to read. It's especially insane if you have multiple
> authors and where the license stays the same but the copyright years
I combine all the copyright notices into one block with that license. I
don't see anything in the DEP-5 format that says you can't do that, but if
there is anything, clearly we should fix that. Legally, I believe doing
that is fine.
> My suggestions:
> * Split out the authors and the copyright dates into one chunk. The
> fact that fileA is copyright 2005 Joe and fileB is copyright 2006
> Fred and then fileC is copyright 2006 both of this is completely
> irrelevant for most people, just that Joe and Fred have copyright
> of some parts of the package is enough.
I think *allowing* this would be fine, but *requiring* that the authors be
separated from the corresponding license block is a bad idea. It's often
quite easy to retain this (by just copying the copyright and license from
a portion of the package), and I personally don't want to lose that
> * Make it possible to say "this package is licensed under foo
> except fileA which is licensed under bar"
I'm not sure why you don't think this is already possible. I do this all
the time using the existing DEP-5 specification.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>