Re: DEP-5: additional requirements to use with upstream
On to, 2010-08-12 at 22:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <email@example.com> writes:
> > On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> * An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
> >> no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of the
> >> distribution as a whole. (In US law, this is called a compilation
> >> copyright.) This is not the same thing as a Files: * section, which
> >> would specify a default copyright and license for any individual file
> >> that doesn't have other information. In some edge cases, the
> >> compilation copyright and license can be different than the copyright
> >> and license of any individual file in the distribution.
> > I am uncomfortable signalling compilation copyright just with the
> > absence of a Files: field. It seems to error prone to me. It would be
> > better to be explicit, I think. What would be a good way of being
> > explicit in this case?
> Maybe allow Copyright and License fields in the header? This would also
> has the advantage of being the way, in DEP-5, to do what several people
> are asking for and just state the license for the whole package without
> enumerating files, equivalent to what they're doing without DEP-5 now.
> (This differs from a Files: * block in that the latter makes specific
> claims about individual files, whereas the general copyright and license
> statement does not and has the same granularity as most upstream license
This sounds good to me. Does anyone object?