Syntax for avoiding spdx warning 62 ?

[dbuenzli]

Unless I missed it*, it seems there is no syntax to specify a license identifier for licenses that do not fall under the SPDX ones.

Not everything out there fits into SPDX identifiers; if only non-libre software. Here's an example:

/Users/dbuenzli/sync/repos/odig/opam: Warnings.
  warning 62: License doesn't adhere to the SPDX standard, see https://spdx.org/licenses/:
 "ParaType-Free-Font-License", "DejaVu-fonts"

For example ParaType-Free-Font-License is what is used by debian in the corresponding font package. DejaVu-fonts is my invention, it's a complicated set of licenses (I suspect the debian package specification for that one is underspecified); it just means go check it out if you need to.

If there is no established convention, maybe a not-spdx: prefix ? (Though I highly dislike the spdx jargon).

*: I have to admit I have difficulties to navigate the spdx standard and website which it seems has been taken over by enterprisy bureaucrats.

[kit-ty-kate]

Custom license names are supported in the SPDX standard through: LicenseRef-your-custom-name-here
In your case this should be:

license: "LicenseRef-ParaType-Free-Font-License AND LicenseRef-DejaVu-fonts"

(or OR instead of AND depending on what the license actually is)
See #4768 for more information.

Side note: The full SPDX standard (see PR above) is only supported on master (2.2.0). Hopefully it will be released soon enough.

[dbuenzli]

Thanks but I tried to figure out that for at least half an hour and didn't succeed. Could you maybe update the opam manual with more precise information ? A good friend should not send you to visit the spdx website like the warning does.

[kit-ty-kate]

Yes I was already doing it in #4863 ^^

[dbuenzli]

Also is there an implicit AND or OR between the licenses in the license: field ?

[kit-ty-kate]

mmh, ah yeah we could update the warning too. Could you do a PR for that if you have some time? I would not be sure how to formulate it

[dbuenzli]

Honestly I rather not get into a DSL to specify my licenses. I think opam should simply attribute a semantics and that semantics should be AND.

[kit-ty-kate]

Also is there an implicit AND or OR between the licenses in the license: field ?

My guess is that it mostly mean AND but I don't think it's defined anywhere so anyone can use it as they wish