[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

[Matthias Clasen]

On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 08:05 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

> > - To keep using "GPL or Artistic" for perl doesn't make much sense to
> > me, since we are trying to differentiate clearly the different GPL
> > versions. Is it "GPLv2+ or Artistic"? "GPLv2 or Artistic"?
> 
> This is a valid point, but I can already hear the perl packagers
> screaming again. :)
> 
> > - If we use only " and " and " or " (with spaces around them), wouldn't
> > the field still be reliably parseable, yet easier to read? And more
> > coherent with the "GPL* or Artistic" from the perl packages?
> 
> My concern about having scripts that try to parse "and" or "or" as a
> separator is that we have to be especially careful about license short
> identifiers. No "Random", "Korn", "Floor", (or to give an actual
> relevant example, "Condor", which is currently in the list). Using &&
> and || prevents us from having parsing mistakes. I suppose we could
> parse on _and/_or...but even then, a hypothetical "Andover" license
> would throw us off. It's still doable, we'd just have to be very careful
> how it is implemented.
> 

Oh, come on, \band\b is not that hard. Using some awkward notation is
making the life of every packager harder, for the benefit of the one
person who implements the parser.