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. Right. 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