On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:10 PM, João Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt> wrote:
> Mainly what I was trying to say is that this dual licensing distinction can > already be handled with path-specific exceptions so I guess I'm indifferent > to adding more code for this. I view path-specific exceptions as workarounds for deficiencies in licensecheck, and would prefer to have as few path-specific exceptions as possible. Ideally, the only places where path-specific exceptions would be used would be places where licensecheck would need AI rather than pattern matching to identify the license. :-) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
