If you are going to ignore constant factors, then you might as well say that both approaches will require O(n) summaries.
As far as I can tell, -legal only gets asked about a few packages under any licence, so the appeal to O(n) would ignore significant constants.
[...] If you startfrom a license summary, you just need to ask "how does this differ fromthe general case", not "how does this differ from <insert possibly obscure package here>'s case".
I don't see that there is much difference in work between the two cases. Usually, looking at a package with "baggage" could still note something might be a problem, but we have waiver/clarification X, so we'll defer this work. Why do work that we don't need to do and that we're not tooled for, analysing in the abstract?
This is where we are at the moment. I thought the summaries were an attempt to reduce the digging, but they seem to have drifted.How so?
Summaries hereto seem to restate views without many references. All on the web site so far only give a link to one discussion, if that.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing "Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden