Re: DEP5: Making "Files: *" non-optional
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:59:34AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>>
>>> The current DEP5 draft says:
>>>
>>> * **`Files`**
>>> * Required for all but the first paragraph.
>>> If omitted from the first paragraph,
>>> this is equivalent to a value of '*'.
>>> * Syntax: white space separated list
>>> * List of patterns indicating files covered by the license
>>> and copyright specified in this paragraph. See "File patterns" below.
>>>
>>> Does anyone oppose if I remove the "If omitted..." sentence? I see no
>>> reason to make the format unnecessarily complicated by having it
>>> optional. In other words, I propose to make the "Files:" field mandatory
>>> in all paragraphs except the first (header) one, where it is not allowed
>>> at all.
>>
>> Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package,
>> without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that
>> specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to
>> all files would be an untruth.
>
> Is this question any different from what I responded to on August 13th?
The question is not very different, but then, as now, the anser
raised some concerns about spreading misinformation.
> Here is, I believe, an example of what you ask for:
>
> Copyright: 2009, John Doe
> License: GPL-2
> Verbatim license from source bla bla with reference to common-licenses
>
> With Lars' proposal (and allowed now too, but not mandated) it would
> look like this:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: 2009, John Doe
> License: GPL-2
> Verbatim license from source bla bla with reference to common-licenses
And if this copyright notice does not apply to all files, I
think this is an incorrect statement. I would prefer that the format we
are creating does not force me to incorrectly imply that the copyright
notice applies to all files in the package.
>> I would suggest that a missing files: field in the headers
>> implies that no statement is being made about which files the copyright
>> notice applies to, instead f implying it applies to all files.
>
> Hmm. Interesting indeed!
>
> Yes, this is actually one thing that I silently found relief in when
> the ability to drop the "Files: *" line for first (non-header) section
> was introduced: Until then I felt slightly awkward about stating that
> _all_ files had a certain license, when in fact I knew for sure that
> only some of them explicitly stated copyright and licensing.
Or when I know for sure some files specified a *different*
copyright notice, but I do not want to keep track of which files these
were, and keep the list updated.
manoj
--
Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
Reply to: