Hi Charles, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
>> For example, I think the idea of a License-exception stanza is >> uncontroversial and valuable. > > given that the current specification does not forbid unpecified fields, > I would recommend to test the proposed License-Exception field in real, > by convincing package maintainers and parser providers to use and support it. Unfortunately that would involve violating the spec. The current specification requires that every paragraph be a header paragraph, a Files paragraph, or a License paragraph. License-Exception paragraphs are not allowed. Besides, when the License field in a Files paragraph refers to a license exception, either the field must include the full text of the license or a pointer to common-licenses or the short name followed by a license exception must be defined in a License paragraph --- defining the short name and license exception in separate standalone paragraphs is not allowed. Hoping that clarifies, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cafzf2xwrk91-w1ms+rgf3ulf+lrohbrnovwpp5_w2x7dr0c...@mail.gmail.com
