---
# System prepended metadata

title: Questions regarding COPYRIGHT for a lawyer

---

# Questions regarding COPYRIGHT for a lawyer

For reference, see:

* [pietros PR]
* [rendered copyright]
* [earlier notes before Wesley and Felix's first meeting with Foundation legal]

[pietros PR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104527

[rendered copyright]: https://gist.github.com/pietroalbini/efb81103f69596d39758114f3f6a8688

[earlier notes before Wesley and Felix's first meeting with Foundation legal]: https://hackmd.io/KXgMBDScS3aOg2au_Jgnww

## Internal Questions

Q: What is end-goal here? Covering Rust-project's ass? Or covering ass of Rust users?

Q: What do we think the laywer wants/needs to see? E.g. sit down and look at all of the code? Or just the license files and headers? Or just the end COPYRIGHT file that will eventually be generated according to Pietro's plan (see [rendered copyright] as an example).

Q: Does Pietro have any other questions that they want the lawyer to answer? What is Pietro looking for from the lawyer (e.g. an official sign-off that all the licensing is correct? or just answers to the questions we raise? something in middle?)

## Questions for a lawyer

:::warning 
lets assume that the answer about what to focus on *is* indeed the generated COPYRIGHT file
::: 

Q: Is this format for the COPYRIGHT file what the laywer *expects* to see? or do they need a different format?

 * For example, Felix's expectation is that lawyer's need a very specific kind of *english* for such documents, and this is more like a toml file or something
 
Q: Do we need to include the actual text of each license in the COPYRIGHT document itself, or is it sufficient to refer to them by name (as is currently the case)?

 * Or is there a middle ground where the document includes the concrete text for each in an appendix, and the names are used to reference those appendices? (I.e. do we have to follow precedent set by other projects where multiple copies of the same license are expanded inline).

