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

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

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:06:24AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> writes:

> > There seems to be consensus to add an optional License field to the
> > first paragraph.

> I don't have a patch, but just to be clear: the consensus seems to be
> more narrow. The arguments in this thread have supported an optional
> *pair* of fields, ‘Copyright’ and ‘License’; either both must be
> present in the header, or neither.

I don't think there's much evidence that this is the consensus.  So far we
have two different positions advanced in this thread:

  Joey Hess, "there's a compilation copyright but no need for a top-level
  license declaration because the files each have their own license":

  Russ Allbery, "but if there's a compilation copyright, there's compilation
  intellectual property that can be released under a license":

Neither of these appears to be an assertion that a copyright field *must* be
accompanied by a license field.  One is an assertion that a compilation
copyright *may* be accompanied by a compilation license.  One is an
assertion that it may *not* be accompanied by one.

Neither of these match with what you're claiming to be the "consensus", but
are compatible with Lars's description of the consensus.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: