On 15/11/11 21:15, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ximin Luo <infinity0@gmx.com> writes: > >> There's a perfectly sensible way to represent it - write a stanza for >> GPL2, not GPL2+. It's perfectly clear, just as the following is clear: > >> Files: X; License: A or B >> License: A; fulltext >> License: B; fulltext > >> Not having stanzas for 3,4,or5 is a different issue, and the >> separate-GPL2+ method has this issue too. > >> Files: X; License: A+ >> License: A: fulltext > >> vs > >> Files: X; License: A+ >> License: A+: fulltext > >> Please explain why the former version is somehow less coherent, or makes >> "less sense". > > Because the *text* explaining the "+" part appears nowhere in the file in > this case, and I don't believe that's acceptable. We need to include the > legal statement from upstream, not just make it implicit in the "GPL-2+" > tag in the file. > The text explaining the "or" part appears nowhere as well, when DEP5 forces me to split the tri-license paragraph. The two situations are equivalent, yet you're choosing different solutions for each! >> Nitpicking uncomfortable corners now saves headaches in the future; >> besides I already proposed a solution, so why is it a problem? > > Because I think your solution is wrong. :) > >> The reason I know about this example is because I have already come >> across similar situations. If you make the conceptual mistake of >> including preamble with the license, you must have multiple license >> blocks for each preamble. > > That's correct. That's my understanding, also, of what ftpmaster says > that people should do. > >> For example, the MPL standard preamble lists all the different types of >> authors, instead of being a general preamble. If you have 2 distinct >> premables, it would be absurd to have both in the MPL License: >> paragraph, yet that is exactly what above example suggests for GPL2. > > There may be some missing DEP5 feature for representing this, but I > believe that both of those preambles do indeed need to be in the copyright > file, at least ideally. Not having them both is something I consider a > bug. (The severity of the bug is arguable.) > Alternatively, treat License stanzas as published licenses, and place preamble information in License/Comment entries in File stanzas. This is a much cleaner solution and what I had been interpreting DEP5 to mean. -- GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0 https://bitbucket.org/infinity0 https://launchpad.net/~infinity0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature