Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:16:18AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > Le Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:21:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit : > > > > copyright-format reads: > > > > | Exceptions and clarifications are signaled in plain text, by appending > > | "with <keywords> exception" to the short name. > > > > However, it is not specified how different keywords are separated. > > For example, should one write: > > "License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL and Font exception" or > > "License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL, Font exception" or maybe > > "License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL Font exception"? > I looked at how my favorite parser, config-edit, is doing with exceptions, and > if I add a ‘OpenSSL and Font’ or an ‘OpenSSL, Font’ exception, it stops with > error at loading…
Hi again, I inspected the 11,575 packages available on the Lintian Lab. 489 License statements had the word “exception” in. None of them were double exceptions. Is there a concrete example where we need to support multiple exceptions ? If not, I propose to follow and document the current practice, which is to support only one. This has the advantage that it will not be needed to implement new functions in parsers, nor to correct copyright files. In case one file comes licensed with a double exception later, it can be the object of a revision of the format if needed, and in the meantime it can be supported using a custom license short name (not a combination), or a custom exception name. This has the advantage of giving the time to coordinate with related projects, in particular SPDX, about how to support complex semantics of license exceptions, if needed. If possible, I would like counter-arguments for supporting complex cases to be argumented with concrete example and a discussion about implementation. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111116003105.ga26...@plessy.org
