Re: Licence handling: next steps

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 02:53:46PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 02:47:17PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > I don't like this syntax. Can we please make it
> > (a) explicit
> > (b) support ()
> > (c) Spell them out instead of using weired symbols?
> 
> You mean something like:
> LICENSE=      (license1 OR license2) AND license3 AND license4

Yes.

> I personally don't see the benefit, and it goes above my head to write
> that in make. If someone else finds it useful, please go ahead and
> provide a diff.

For (a): Because both AND and OR make a natural first level choice,
depending on what you want to express.

For (b): There some non-trivial examples of licenses in the tree and
adding the expressiveness doesn't hurt.

For (c) This is cosmetic, but it helps visibility for non programmers.

Joerg