Confusing description of the license file

[gkurzbach]

In chapter 18.12.2 it is stated:

"The license file is standardized. It is a Modelica package without classes
that has a Protection annotation of the following form ..."

and

In the example below there is no Protection annotation:

This is a contradiction and should be corrected. This must be done by adapting the definition, because existing license files are based on the example and not on the definition. It might be sufficient not to mention the Protection annotation in the context of the license file and to adapt the definition.
(Also, the filename in the comment in the example does not match the licenseFile annotation in the example above.)

Having two different annotation definitions with same names Protection and License is also confusing, but in the case of License, this probably can not be changed.

Further, there are places where this file is called "license file", but sometimes it is also called "authorization file". Or are these different files? This is also confusing.

Another question:
What is the semantics of an empty operations array of the License annotation in the license file (when this field is not present in the given annotation -> default behavior)? This information should be also given in the spec.

[HansOlsson]

I believe this is similar to #3629 - which is not yet merged; can you review if that solution solves it (fully or partially)?

We do in general have a problem that reviews of pull requests are lagging behind increasing the risk that we get duplicate issues.

[gkurzbach]

#3629 solves the first point but the others are still open.

[HansOlsson]

#3629 solves the first point but the others are still open.

Can you then review and accept it?

[gkurzbach]

Done.

We do in general have a problem that reviews of pull requests are lagging behind increasing the risk that we get duplicate issues.

On reason could be, that these diffs are very hard to read.

[HansOlsson]

I have tried to:

• Consistently call it authorization file, even though the annotation is called licenseFile. The reason is that we also have "license text files" that are something completely different.
• Specify what happens for empty features.