W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us]: > The Appendix V wording for that is: > > Representing Multiple Licenses > > Multiple licenses can be represented using a SPDX license expression > as defined in Appendix IV. A set of licenses must be enclosed in > parentheses (this is a convention for SPDX expressions). > > which is a strange combination of “must” and “convention”. But it sounded > to me like a requirement for parens around the whole license expression, > and not a suggestion for additional parens within the license expression. In > [2], I tried to express that with the ‘enclosed-license-expression’ rule [3] > and its explanatory paragraph [4].
Appendix V only applies to license expressions within files, not license expressions generally. If we interpret "must" as a real requirement, then within files you must use (...) in these cases. In contrast, Appendix IV applies in all cases. I think the Appendix V additional requirement should be dropped, frankly. That is, I think we should remove the statement, "A set of licenses must be enclosed in parentheses (this is a convention for SPDX expressions)." I'm fine with a style recommendation as a "should" in appendix IV, which is already there. But if someone forgets the parentheses, the license expression should still be accepted because it's unambiguous and has been historically allowed by the specification. --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
