Hello, On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 08:21am -05, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Oh, wow. I've been doing this wrong all along. I am not sure how I > developed the impression that it was necessary to distinguish different > copyright holders (even same copyright holders with different copyright > years), but your approach is most certainly simpler and more compact. Right. This is the sort of overdocumentation that I worry our machine-readable copyright format implicitly encourages us to do. > How about licenses with slight variations? I'm thinking BSD-like and > MIT-like licenses which mention the copyright holder usually as the > first thing in the in license text. Could those be combined into a > single stanza in the way you describe? IANAL, but my understanding is that the statement of copyright does not actually form part of the license text, so you can consolidate, indeed. > Also, I assume that it is good practice to verify actual license texts > included by upstream against known good sources since that seems like > something FTP masters would have to do as well. Is that correct? You should check for variant licenses, though with GNU licenses it is unlikely to come up because those licenses do not permit derivative works. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature