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

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Hi Charles,

Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :

>> For example, I think the idea of a License-exception stanza is
>> uncontroversial and valuable.
>
> given that the current specification does not forbid unpecified fields,
> I would recommend to test the proposed License-Exception field in real,
> by convincing package maintainers and parser providers to use and support it.

Unfortunately that would involve violating the spec. The current
specification requires that every paragraph be a header paragraph, a
Files paragraph, or a License paragraph.  License-Exception paragraphs
are not allowed.  Besides, when the License field in a Files paragraph
refers to a license exception, either the field must include the full
text of the license or a pointer to common-licenses or the short name
followed by a license exception must be defined in a License paragraph
--- defining the short name and license exception in separate
standalone paragraphs is not allowed.

Hoping that clarifies,
Jonathan