Re: DEP-5: clarify batching of copyrights, licenses in a single stanza
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: DEP-5: clarify batching of copyrights, licenses in a single stanza
- From: Lars Wirzenius <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:33:14 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20100814053938.GC2608@dario.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1288260919.3333.9.camel@havelock> <20101028105803.GA24971@merveille.plessy.net> <1288265723.3333.17.camel@havelock> <20101028201549.GB11665@enc.com.au> <email@example.com>
On to, 2010-10-28 at 17:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Craig Small <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > This is the collecting part I hope is cleared up. Do something like
> > grep -i copyright `find . -name '*.[ch]'`
> > over a non trivial project, especially one that has been around for
> > years and you get all sorts of wonderful combinations.
> > The globbing Charles suggested adds Angela to 2008 and John to 2009,
> > maybe. I'm not sure if that's a problem.
> I doubt there's any way that we could know without asking a lawyer, but my
> feeling is that long before we got into trouble for aggregating copyright
> statements, we would have many, many other problems with our current
I gather there's a rough consensus on accepting my diff, with the fixes
suggested by Charles, so I merged that.
If it turns out that the combination of various copyright statements
into summaries (see ) is a bad idea, legally speaking, then we can
just not do that. It should not affect the DEP-5 format, I think, so I
don't want to postpone this change until legal minds have figured it
On to the next topics...