Re: [DEP5] License field in the first paragraph ?
Charles Plessy <email@example.com> writes:
> About having a License field in the header: on one hand I have not
> seen opposition to this, but on the other hand, it is not allowed by
> the current candidate draft, which lists License only in the fields of
> the Files paragraph.
That's a good point. It does seem that anything that we would want to
specify a value for “Copyright” we would also need to be able to specify
> I am worried that there was a misundertanding about the purpose of the
> first paragraph's Copyright field: from my reading of the current
> version of the DEP (and independantly of how my opinion on how it
> should be)
The explanation in the DEP doesn't really make it clear why this is
needed, as opposed to an initial “Files: *” paragraph with the “package
as a whole” copyright and license values.
Where is the rationale for having Copyright apply in the header?
> it does not replace a Copyright field associated to a catch-all Files
> field, that is: in the example given by Jonas, a paragraph containing
> a ‘Files: *’ field is necessary.
That does seem to follow from the current specification, yes.
\ “Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for |
`\ peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of |
_o__) peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 |