> You should just be using URIs (or even URNs) for the license file. Don't use a > hash because this can change if you license file changes (think whitespace). > > Just use urns... urn:gpl or urn:lgpl should be fine. >
That was considered. There is no central authority for assigning URNs. Many licenses are already available and freely distributable, and it is hoped that those are used instead of re-created. But in the LIDESC open architecture, anyone can create a new stamp and description file without going through a central authority. LIDESC stamps already include a urn-like item: the name of the license text file. Because there is also a hash code, LIDESC can search a list of directories for a file which matches in name AND hash code. So even if there is a collision in file name, LIDESC still identifies the right license. As for whitespace, \r is removed when calculating the hash code, but there are some contrived cases where differences in whitespace have legal significance. Consider indenting whitespace when there is a phrase like "You must place the following notice..." followed by an indented copyright notice, and then a warranty disclaimer, not indented. Did I fully reply to the issues you raise? Forrest -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3