Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now, > although the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty. > > Was that deliberate? I feel that it makes the current draft not > appropriate for widespread use: as discussed in this subthread there > is ambiguity on the exact wording of each BSD variant.
Hi Jonas, I am hoping that given SPDX is advancing towards beta release, they will fill these pages in a not too long time. But in the meantime, we could add a link to their license table, if necessary: diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn index 09da1e1..1b217de 100644 --- a/dep5.mdwn +++ b/dep5.mdwn @@ -383,6 +383,9 @@ of that license, the short name is finished with a plus sign. For SPDX compatibility, trailing "dot-zeroes" are considered to be equal to plainer version (e.g., "2.0.0" is considered equal to "2.0" and "2"). +Currently, the full text of the licenses is only available in the +[working version the SPDX license list](http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list). + [[!table data=""" **keyword** | **meaning** Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
