On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:31:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:16:18AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > > Le Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:21:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit : > > > copyright-format reads: > > > | Exceptions and clarifications are signaled in plain text, by appending > > > | "with <keywords> exception" to the short name. > > > However, it is not specified how different keywords are separated. > > > For example, should one write: > > > "License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL and Font exception" or > > > "License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL, Font exception" or maybe > > > "License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL Font exception"? > > I looked at how my favorite parser, config-edit, is doing with exceptions, and > > if I add a ‘OpenSSL and Font’ or an ‘OpenSSL, Font’ exception, it stops with > > error at loading… > I inspected the 11,575 packages available on the Lintian Lab. 489 License > statements had the word “exception” in. None of them were double exceptions. > Is there a concrete example where we need to support multiple exceptions ? > If not, I propose to follow and document the current practice, which is to > support only one. This has the advantage that it will not be needed to > implement new functions in parsers, nor to correct copyright files. I have no objection to this for 1.0, provided we at the same time clarify that if more than one exception is in use, you need to use a custom shortname instead of an ORed or ANDed list of licenses. Is there a consensus for this position? I think for future versions of the standard, it's worth covering this case even if it's only a hypothetical; but there's no reason to hold up 1.0 for something that's going to require parser changes and isn't in use anywhere. -- 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