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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111221120526.GC20037@chouca.igloo
