On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:32:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: > * Andrew Suffield :: > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:06:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:20:05PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: > > > > You've got a problem with this one, because licenses can be > > > > combined conjunctively and disjunctively. So a package might > > > > be both entirely under foo and entirely under bar (foo || > > > > bar), or it might be partially under foo and partially under > > > > bar (foo && bar). > > > > > > If that is the only problem, a package can be tagged with more > > > than one tag even from the same facet, which would be good > > > enough to categorise your two examples. > > > > Imagine a package that can be distributed if you meet the terms > > of: > > > > - the GPL > > - both the MIT license and the 4-clause BSD license, > > simultaneously > > - both the MIT license and the Artistic license, simultaneously > > > > How would you tag this, so as to capture all this information? > > ( GPL ) || ( MIT && 4BSD ) || ( MIT && Artistic ) > > ?? :-) this is the easy one, what if some files are provided under > each of those licenses? GPL + (MIT && 4BSD) + (MIT && Artistic)? Although it is not precise, it might help to have a "multiple-license" tag. Probably everything more fine-grained has to be manually reviewed, anyway. Just tag each package with every license which is somehow related to the license of that package, and hope that there aren't a bajillion libraries (which are probably the easiest use of this type of tagging: "What libraries are compatible with the program I already have or want to have") which do a given thing which also match a semi-complicated license condition (like, "!BSD && !GPL").
Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
