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

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 08:44:16PM +0000, Ximin Luo a écrit :
> 
> I think your example above is not the best way to represent license exceptions.
> Roughly, the specification of a license can be described by this sort of grammar:
> 
> CompositeLicense
> :: AND ( CompositeLicense1 CompositeLicense2 ... )
> :: OR ( CompositeLicense1 CompositeLicense2 ... )
> :: CompositeLicense with LicenseException
> :: PublishedLicense or later
> :: PublishedLicense

Dear Ximin,

frankly, I do not think that we need a grammar.  Note that the early draft of
DEP 5 contained an EBNF grammar and we removed it.

  http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/dep-commits/2009-April/000037.html

I even do not think anymore that we need a system for declaring license
exceptions.  Exceptions, version numbers, and permissions to upgrade can all be
represented as separate licenses with a single short name.  Projects interested
in tracking relationships and interactions between licenses can attach their
own metadata to the published short names – and of course, share it.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France