On to, 2010-08-12 at 22:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Lars Wirzenius <l...@liw.fi> writes: > > On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> * An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with > >> no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of the > >> distribution as a whole. (In US law, this is called a compilation > >> copyright.) This is not the same thing as a Files: * section, which > >> would specify a default copyright and license for any individual file > >> that doesn't have other information. In some edge cases, the > >> compilation copyright and license can be different than the copyright > >> and license of any individual file in the distribution. > > > I am uncomfortable signalling compilation copyright just with the > > absence of a Files: field. It seems to error prone to me. It would be > > better to be explicit, I think. What would be a good way of being > > explicit in this case? > > Maybe allow Copyright and License fields in the header? This would also > has the advantage of being the way, in DEP-5, to do what several people > are asking for and just state the license for the whole package without > enumerating files, equivalent to what they're doing without DEP-5 now. > (This differs from a Files: * block in that the latter makes specific > claims about individual files, whereas the general copyright and license > statement does not and has the same granularity as most upstream license > declarations.)
This sounds good to me. Does anyone object? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1281678321.2264.171.ca...@havelock