On Thursday 30 October 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:17 AM, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > So, in summary, here's my objections to the
> > > current 'license' field in META.yml:
> > > * poorly documented;
> > > * limited range of options for licences;
> > > * only one licence per distribution
> > > The first is fixable so I'm not too bothered by it. The second and
> > > third are fundamental design flaws which make it unfit for purpose.
> >
> > Your proposal doesn't seem to address the second point in any way.
>
> That's the bit where I suggest instead of saying, eg, "frobnitz" to mean
> "the Frobnitz licence" you say "frobnitz" to mean "the licence whose text
> is in the 'frobnitz' file". That would allow the author to use any licence
> he wants.
This seems like the road to chaos. Imagine I put "mit" there and mit.txt
contains the text of the GPLv3. I think we should have unique identifiers for
every licence, and expand them to encompass more licences if necessary, then
allow such inconsistent behaviour.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Parody on "The Fountainhead" - http://xrl.us/bjria
Shlomi, so what are you working on? Working on a new wiki about unit testing
fortunes in freecell? -- Ran Eilam
