On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:24:03AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I disagree strongly. The cost of giving maintainers *different* ways to > > represent the license status is much higher than the cost of requiring > > maintainers to separately reproduce license headers for components that are > > GPL-2 licensed vs. GPL-2+.
> Reading this in the context of the text you are replying to, I fear I > don't understand. I didn't mention multiple licenses or multiple ways > to represent license status at all, so this reply feels like a > non-sequitor. While it's useful to see that you disagree strongly, > I'm not sure what you disagree strongly with. In your message, you said that you didn't think it should be required to split the license notice into a comment field but that it should be allowed, and you offered a patch addressing this. "Allowed" means the author of the file has a choice about which way to do it, and that's not appropriate. > However, I don't think there is anything to act on immediately in this > report, except clarifying one detail: > Since standalone license paragraphs are used to "expand license short > names" and "GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception" is not a short name but a > short name with an exception, do I understand correctly that license > exceptions cannot be put in stand-alone License paragraphs? I don't believe that's the intent at all. I think this is perfectly valid: Files: * Copyright: The Man in the Moon, 2007 License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception This program is free software [...] as a special exception, [...] On Debian systems, [...] Perhaps the spec should be clarified to make this more explicit? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
