Charles Plessy <[email protected]> writes: > About having a License field in the header: on one hand I have not > seen opposition to this, but on the other hand, it is not allowed by > the current candidate draft, which lists License only in the fields of > the Files paragraph.
That's a good point. It does seem that anything that we would want to specify a value for “Copyright” we would also need to be able to specify “License”. > I am worried that there was a misundertanding about the purpose of the > first paragraph's Copyright field: from my reading of the current > version of the DEP (and independantly of how my opinion on how it > should be) The explanation in the DEP doesn't really make it clear why this is needed, as opposed to an initial “Files: *” paragraph with the “package as a whole” copyright and license values. Where is the rationale for having Copyright apply in the header? > it does not replace a Copyright field associated to a catch-all Files > field, that is: in the example given by Jonas, a paragraph containing > a ‘Files: *’ field is necessary. That does seem to follow from the current specification, yes. -- \ “Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for | `\ peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of | _o__) peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
