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