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

[Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>]

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