[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 10:32:23AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> 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.

I happen to be inclined to agree with you here - I just don't see that
this has emerged yet as a consensus in the discussion.

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: