On la, 2011-01-22 at 18:48 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Charles Plessy <[email protected]> writes: > > > Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:42:17PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : > > > > > > There seems to be consensus to add an optional License field to the > > > first paragraph. […] > > > > Here is a first attempt. Comments welcome: the discussion was a bit > > complex and I am not sure if I summarised it well. > > One aspect I don't see covered in your patch: ‘Copyright’ and ‘License’ > only make sense as a pair (details in the preceding discussion). I think > the standard should specify that if either is used, both must be used.
I find it reasonable to use only License, to indicate that a specific license applies to the package as a whole, without having any one party have a copyright on the package as a whole. If the package contains of files A and B, with A being GPL2+ and B being GPL3+, the header paragraph's License field could say GPL3+. There would still be no need to have a Copyright field in the header paragraph. I would prefer to keep things simpler, and not have a rule about when either field requires the other. -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
