On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:36:08AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: > On Thursday 30 October 2008, David Cantrell wrote: > > 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.
If you say 'mit' and don't have a 'mit' file that should be an error in my scheme. mit.txt != mit. If you're silly enough to put the text of the GPL3 in a file called 'mit.txt' then that's your problem. No such scheme can protect against user error. Your hypothetical is no different from you putting 'mit' in the current 'license' field while saying in the POD "blah blah blah GPL3 blah blah". -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice There is no one true indentation style, But if there were K&R would be Its Prophets. Peace be upon Their Holy Beards.
