Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, the history of the draft shows that people are concerned
> about knowing whether *specific* common exceptions are in effect
Good point. For example, the "GPL-2 with OpenSSL exception" and
"OpenSSL" licenses are compatible, while GPL-2 and the OpenSSL
licenses are not.
[...]
> I have a slight preference for:
>
> GPL-2+ with OpenSSL and Font exceptions
>
> because it's both easy to parse and reads naturally in English.
Sounds fine to me. FWIW the only event that I can imagine making me
care one way or another is if someone implementing a parser finds some
particular syntax difficult to parse.
So that means, roughly:
Exceptions are signaled by including "with <keywords>
exceptions" at the end of the short name. The word
"exception" or "exceptions" can be used. Each keyword must be
a single word (see the list below for standard exception
keywords), and the list of keywords is formatted as a list of
words separated by "and".
Example license field
License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL and Font and GCC-Runtime-Library exceptions
The above rough text says 'including at the end' of the short name
instead of 'appending' because the file needs a stand-alone License
paragraph describing the license including exceptions unless the
License field included an explanation after the short name.
I didn't define what "a single word" means but I imagine in the final
text we might want to, to avoid being able to misparse the above
example as listing only two exceptions --- one called "OpenSSL and
Font", and the other called "GCC-Runtime-Library".
--
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/20111115025358.ga6...@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net
