Remove compound-expression from ABNF grammar

[sertonix]

compound-expression was equivalent to license-expression. Also fixing a small formatting issue.

Ref #62, #456

[goneall]

Thanks @sertonix for the pull request.

Can you apply this to the development/v3.0 branch and sign off so it passes the DCO?

[zvr]

@goneall I don't agree this is needed.

Yes, license-expression can be expanded to the same as compound-expression, but this was chosen to illustrate the different types of expressions. The text below follows this convention, talking about simple and compound/complex expressions.

[sertonix]

The text below follows this convention, talking about simple and compound/complex expressions.

Couldn't the text talk about simple expressions and license expressions instead?

[goneall]

@goneall I don't agree this is needed.

Yes, license-expression can be expanded to the same as compound-expression, but this was chosen to illustrate the different types of expressions. The text below follows this convention, talking about simple and compound/complex expressions.

This makes sense - I'm OK with the way it is (even though, technically, it can be removed).

@sertonix if you're OK with this, we can close this PR (and you don't need to rebase).

[zvr]

Couldn't the text talk about simple expressions and license expressions instead?

But "simple expressions" are also "license expressions" -- they are not two distinct things.

Having the grammar was confusing enough for lawyers who have to read this (and who wrote this), so we wanted to make it crystal clear and easy to follow.

[goneall]

Going to go ahead and close this per @zvr comment above