On 18/12/11 20:56, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ximin Luo wrote: > >> the current DEP5 supports this and has it as an explicit example. > > Relevant wording: > > Section "Paragraphs", subsection "Stand-alone License Paragraph" says: > > Where a set of files are dual (tri, etc) licensed, or when the > same license occurs multiple times, you can use a single-line > License field and stand-alone License paragraphs to expand the > license short names. > > Problems: > > - the wording only permits stand-alone License paragraphs describing > license short names, not short names with exceptions appended > > - the wording only permits stand-alone License paragraphs when a set > of files has a complex license or the same license occurs multiple > times, contradicting common practice of using stand-alone License > paragraphs when convenient in simpler situations, too. > > Section "Fields", subsection "License" says: > > Remaining lines: if left blank here, the file must include a > stand-alone License paragraph matching each license short name > listed on the first line. > > Problem: > > - the wording only permits stand-alone License paragraphs describing > license short names. > > Section "License specification", subsection "Syntax" includes an > example of a License field for the license "GPL-2+ with OpenSSL > exception". It does not make it clear whether this example is > suitable for Files paragraphs and stand-alone License paragraphs, or > only one of the two. > > Hope that helps. > Jonathan OK, understood. I will take a look at creating a patch for copyright-format.xml like you did. However, I think I would prefer using an explicit grammar instead (e.g. the sort that programming language specifications use), because that leads to clearer thinking and less ambiguity. Which would you prefer? Or should I do both (it would take much more time)? X -- GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0 https://bitbucket.org/infinity0 https://launchpad.net/~infinity0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature