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

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:03:20AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
> 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.

Sorry for the confusion between new field and new paragraph.  Still, I think
that we are spending a lot of time discussing refinements that need to
demonstrate their usefulness by being adopted independantly by a broad number
of package maintainers.

If experimentations are blocked because the current specification does not
allow unspecified types of paragraphs, how about considering to relax it ?
We already had the same issue for proposed paragraphs about removed files.

Cheers,

-- 
Charles