Thanks Bradley,
I took Wayne's note to mean he thought it was more human-readable that way
(with parens) for people working on his project, not that it would evaluate
differently than a list of ORs with no parens.
Best,
Brad Edmondson
--
Brad Edmondson, *Esq.*
512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail
Bradley M. Kuhn:
> Could you explain a bit further why the extra parenthesis grouping is
> needed when only ORs are involved?
As you guessed, the parentheses are not *needed*. The SPDX spec says that
parentheses SHOULD be used when there are multiple license identifiers or
license refs, but thi
I realise that I'm using the parentheses incorrectly or at least needlessly
according to the specification. I understand that they add no
machine-readable meaning. I believe that I stated as much earlier on this
thread.
My abuse of the parentheses was an attempt to express something that SPDX
cann
David,
So you can confirm there is *absolutely* no semantic licensing difference
between a series of OR expressions with or without parenthetical groupings?
Folks on the call today seemed to indicate there might be a semantic
difference that the Eclipse Foundation had asked for.
--
Bradley M. Ku
Bradley M. Kuhn:
> So you can confirm there is *absolutely* no semantic licensing difference
> between a series of OR expressions with or without parenthetical
> groupings?
I don't speak for SPDX :-). But I can read, and hopefully that's something :-).
I don't see anything in the SPDX specificati
