Re: [DEP5] License field in the first paragraph ?
Jonas Smedegaard <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:32:38AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Jonas Smedegaard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> I.e. regarding my example, even if DEP5 should be corrected to also
>>> mention License: in header paragraph, I should _still_ below that
>>> include a "Files: *" paragraph with identical Copyright and License,
>>> because the header covers our relicensing and the Files paragraphs
>>> cover upstream licensing.
>> You should only do that if you're claiming that you've checked all the
>> files in the package and they're released under that explicit license
>> and not some other, compatible license, IMO.
> ...but I don't this (and therefore also not fully the first either):
> Let's say you as upstream in a LICENSE file in the root of your tarball
> claim e.g. GPL-2+ and I during packaging discovers that the tarball also
> contains some files which are BSD-2-clause.
> Then you here tell me that it makes sense that you as upstream put
> GPL-2+ in the header paragraph of your LICENSE file, but that it is
> wrong of me to do the same in debian/copyright - even if both files
> document exact same sources (only debian/copyright additionally covers
> debian/ subdir too)?
No, if you're just using upstream's license for the whole package and
copying that to debian/copyright, putting it in your header paragraph is
exactly the right thing to do. What I was saying is that you wouldn't
want to add an additional Files: * paragraph reiterating the same license
unless you'd also checked each individual file in the package and
confirmed that it was covered under that license.
I would tend to not use Files: * at all in cases where I have a license in
the header stanza, but instead only add Files: blocks for files with a
license different than the overall license of the package. In other
words, I'd use it largely like Files: *, but with the additional meaning
that it covers the whole package. I think that's the sensible
interpretation when there's a license in the header and no Files: * block.
If there's a license in the header *and* a Files: * block, that says that
the whole package is under the first license and all individual files are
under the second license (checked individually, may be the same license)
except for any files separately listed. I'd only do that if I'd actually
checked every file and confirmed they were all that license.
Think of it this way: the header license statement, if present, is the
license that people have to pay attention to when using the entire
package or making modified works based on the entire package. If they're
extracting individual files from the package, they'll then need to pay
attention to separate Files: blocks for those files.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>