Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:[email protected]]>
>Could this be simplified? > I can see two use cases: > 1. at the file or directory level, this is unlikely needed: just provide the > expression that applies there only e.g. to a doc or source directory in an > SPDX doc or a simple expression. There's no "there" to be in. People are trying to fill in a form, with a single string expressing the SPDX license expression. > 2. for a top level package, would a notion of "licensing scope" be simpler > than a full conditional construct? e.g. something like: > > scope:doc GFDL and MIT > scope:tools GPL-2.0+ > scope:library LGPL-2.1+ No, I think that's much worse. The phrase "scope:doc" is not shorter nor less complicated than "IF DOC" or "IF DOCUMENTATION". This alternative seems to imply semantically-meaningful newlines, which is *NOT* a feature of the current syntax, so this would be a *MUCH* more drastic change. It also is too limited for future expansion - what if you want to handle nesting later? How do you handle the "other than this scope" situation? I think "IF..." is widely understood. Lots of legal texts use them, and programmers know what they are :-). If you want to use the keyword "DOC" instead of "DOCUMENTATION", that's fine. If you want to prefer lower case for non-license keywords, that's fine. Having all keywords in lower case might be a good idea anyway, to help make the keywords more distinct. But that's a different question. --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
