Steve Langasek wrote: > I disagree strongly. The cost of giving maintainers *different* ways to > represent the license status is much higher than the cost of requiring > maintainers to separately reproduce license headers for components that are > GPL-2 licensed vs. GPL-2+.
Reading this in the context of the text you are replying to, I fear I don't understand. I didn't mention multiple licenses or multiple ways to represent license status at all, so this reply feels like a non-sequitor. While it's useful to see that you disagree strongly, I'm not sure what you disagree strongly with. However, I don't think there is anything to act on immediately in this report, except clarifying one detail: Since standalone license paragraphs are used to "expand license short names" and "GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception" is not a short name but a short name with an exception, do I understand correctly that license exceptions cannot be put in stand-alone License paragraphs? Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
