Tom spot Callaway wrote: > The only way I think we can sanely handle this case is like this: > > A. Does the License Tag string match an entry in the License list? > [Yes] Stop, its fine. > [No] Goto B. > B. Does the License Tag have any parenthesis in it? > [Yes] Goto C. > [No] Goto D. > C. Find parenthesis wrapped strings, make them into substrings. For each > substring, goto D. > D. Parse string through regex. Does each remaining item (things not > regexed to /dev/null) match an entry in the License list? > [Yes] Do nothing, keep looking until we're out of strings. > [No] Print out the non-matching item. Keep looking until we're out of > strings. > > Anyone want to take a crack at coding that in python? (Or propose a > better method?) Don't sign me up yet, but I'll look at it when I'm trying to avoid doing other things (the structured procrastination method). Hopefully someone will beat me to it and do it better than I could. >> By the way, "GPLv2+ or Artistic" is not in the license list in Wiki >> nor thus in rpmlint. > > Ahh. I'll fix that right now. While we still need to handle cases like this, in the particular case of "(GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)", isn't it rather pointless? GPLv2+ or Artistic is a subset of GPL+ or Artistic. Why is there any need to complicate the license tag like this? It seems as silly as saying GPL+ or GPLv2+ or GPLv3+. I think I must be missing something peculiar and historic about the Perl license -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If something doesn't feel right, you're not feeling the right thing.
Description: PGP signature