On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:08:18PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > The intention here is to indicate that the Copyright > differs for wibble.c, but the License from the earlier > wildcard still applies. Is this acceptable, or need I > replicate License: in the second stanza?
Bonus note on the current DEP-5 draft, quoting from it:
* License
# First line: licence name(s) in abbreviated format (see Short
names section). If empty, it is given the default value ‘other’
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, an empty License (first line) means "other" license, to be detailed
later on with a License stanza.
Given that you can always factorize out annoying / bothersome license
blocks using License stanzas, this limitation does not look like
particularly severe to me.
Question on this (because the current draft does not look particularly
clear on that topic, at least to my own reading): is it true that
arbitrary keywords can be used in License fields to reference license
blocks expanded later on or not? In particular, I'm worried about the
case where there are different "other" licenses in a given package, that
still need to be reused. Can we in those cases use, e.g., "other1",
"other2", etc., or possibly even more telling names?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
