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

Bug#633797: copyright-format: "with <keywords> exception" underspecified



On 11-11-15 at 06:08pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

Above approach sounds reasonable to me.  Seconded.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: