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": http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/01/msg00084.html Russ Allbery, "but if there's a compilation copyright, there's compilation intellectual property that can be released under a license": http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/01/msg00086.html 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