[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification

Steve Langasek wrote:

> I disagree strongly.  The cost of giving maintainers *different* ways to
> represent the license status is much higher than the cost of requiring
> maintainers to separately reproduce license headers for components that are
> GPL-2 licensed vs. GPL-2+.

Reading this in the context of the text you are replying to, I fear I
don't understand.  I didn't mention multiple licenses or multiple ways
to represent license status at all, so this reply feels like a
non-sequitor.  While it's useful to see that you disagree strongly,
I'm not sure what you disagree strongly with.

However, I don't think there is anything to act on immediately in this
report, except clarifying one detail:

Since standalone license paragraphs are used to "expand license short
names" and "GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception" is not a short name but a
short name with an exception, do I understand correctly that license
exceptions cannot be put in stand-alone License paragraphs?


Reply to: