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

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Charles Plessy wrote:

> 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.

Stepping back a little, do I understand correctly that you mean "No, I
do not think License-Exception paragraphs would be useful"?

That's useful feedback and surprising to me.  More details would be welcome.

Context: I have no interest in diverging from the standard
copyright-format in packages I maintain. But I would use a
License-Exception construct if it existed, and at least one copyright
file would become shorter.

Thanks,
Jonathan