On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:06:24AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Lars Wirzenius <[email protected]> writes:
> > There seems to be consensus to add an optional License field to the
> > first paragraph.
> 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
Russ Allbery, "but if there's a compilation copyright, there's compilation
intellectual property that can be released under a license":
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/01/msg00086.html
Neither of these appears to be an assertion that a copyright field *must* be
accompanied by a license field. One is an assertion that a compilation
copyright *may* be accompanied by a compilation license. One is an
assertion that it may *not* be accompanied by one.
Neither of these match with what you're claiming to be the "consensus", but
are compatible with Lars's description of the consensus.
--
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/
[email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
