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

Re: [DEP5] License field in the first paragraph ?

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:14:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear all,

polishing is geting hectic, but I think that we are going in the good direction…

Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 02:35:17AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :

Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=162
Upstream-Name: Bitcoin
Upstream-Contact: Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
Source: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/
Copyright: 2009-2010, Bitcoin Developers
License: Expat

Files-Excluded: bin/*
Comment: source-less binaries

Files-Excluded: src/cryptopp/*
Comment: unneeded external project sources

Files: src/json/*
Copyright: 2007-2009, John W. Wilkinson
License: Expat

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.

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), 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.

I think that at least we have to resolve the misunderstanding, if any.

Ah, I somehow missed the fact that License: is not a defined field in the "header" paragraph.

I do not agree, that it is outright not allowed (just without any official meaning): Extra fields can be added to any paragraph.

I agree, nevertheless, that my example above lack declaring (in any official DEP5 field) the license covering the main project.

What is the use of declaring copyright without licensing?

As I understood the reason for copyright-in-header, the difference from and a catch-all section is that not _all_ files have copyright. But isn't it equally true that not _all_ files are licensed? Is it even possible at all to license something without holding copyright for it?

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: