On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:08:19PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > In this simple example there is no ambiguity, but only > because it is assumed that the package is licensed > entirely under one license.
That wasn't the assumption I was making...
> The easiest alternative source is the the stanza that is
> just above the one where the License field is missing.
> However, the DEP 5 format is inspired by the Debian
> control file format, that does not have a concept of field
> inheritance between stanzas, so we may break the principle
> of least surprise.
...that is similar to the one I was making: that the last
matching License definition paired with a Files: definition
which matched would apply, e.g. 'Files: *' if provided.
(Not just the last definition, which could be anything).
A closer reading of the DEP-5 wording clears this up for me:
However it makes for easier reading if the copyright
file lists the “main” license first: the one matching
the “top level” of the work, with others listed as
exceptions. To allow this, the following precedence rule
applies for matching files: If multiple Files
declarations match the same file, then only the last
match counts.
So as it stands, no inheritance is possible, and every
Files: line must be accompanied by a Copyright: and a
License: line.
--
Jon Dowland
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
