[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEP-5: additional requirements to use with upstream

On to, 2010-08-12 at 22:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> 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
> declarations.)

This sounds good to me. Does anyone object?

Reply to: