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

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

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:06:24AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > 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

Hmm, I hadn't interpreted it that way, but I can see that.

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


Still, I haven't seen how it makes sense to assert that some object in
Debian has copyright holders, but have no explicit license for it in
Debian. So I still hold the position that the ‘Copyright’ and ‘License’
fields only make sense to record as a pair.

 \        “[It's] best to confuse only one issue at a time.” —Brian W. |
  `\  Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie, _The C programming language_, 1988 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgpS1zQsOGT4V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: