On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 03:16:50PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > SPDX uses one short name per combination of license and exception. I did > not like it at the beginning as I find it inelegant, but in the end it > would be simpler. With that syntax, ‘GPL-2+ with OpenSSL and Font > exceptions’ would be written ‘GPL-2.0+-with-font-exception and > GPL-2.0+-with-OpenSSL-exception’. This is a substantive change to the syntax, not a clarification, and as such is not on the table for consideration in DEP-5 at this time. I also disagree that this syntax offers any clarity at all. "GPL-2.0+-with-font-exception and GPL-2.0+-with-OpenSSL-exception" expresses that use of this code must simultaneously comply with the two named licenses. It does *not* express that the same code is simultaneously covered by two exceptions to the GPL. Nor does use of "or" instead of "and" fare any better, as that suggests that you can only make use of one license exception or the other. > I would recommend against having ‘Y with X exception’ making Y compatible > with X, because it would deviate with how SPDX uses exeptions. For > instance, GPL-2.0-with-bison-exception does not mean that there is a > special exception to use the GPL-2 with a so-called ‘bison’ license. That has not been proposed. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature