| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I always wondered why we are using such bulky names like |
| 3 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 for the Creative Commons licenses, |
| 4 |
> instead of CC-BY-SA-2.5 like everyone else. The latter also used by |
| 5 |
> our documentation pages and is the name in the SPDX license list [1], |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So, while in general I'm against renaming of licenses (e.g., it would |
| 8 |
> be pointless to rename our GPL-2 to GPL-2.0 in order to conform to the |
| 9 |
> SPDX list), I think that in this case we should get rid of these long |
| 10 |
> names which unnecessarily clutter the output of various tools. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
ask for forgiveness, not permission ;) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-A |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The plan would be as follows: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> CC0-1.0-Universal -> CC0-1.0 |
| 20 |
> CCPL-Attribution-2.0 -> CC-BY-2.0 |
| 21 |
> CCPL-Attribution-2.5 -> CC-BY-2.5 |
| 22 |
> CCPL-Attribution-3.0 -> CC-BY-3.0 |
| 23 |
> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-ND-2.5 |
| 24 |
> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 -> CC-BY-ND-3.0 |
| 25 |
> CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.0 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 |
| 26 |
> CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5 |
| 27 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 -> CC-BY-SA-2.0 |
| 28 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 -> CC-BY-SA-2.5 |
| 29 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-3.0 -> CC-BY-SA-3.0 |
| 30 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 |
| 31 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-3.0 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 |
| 32 |
> CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 -> CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 |
| 33 |
> CCPL-ShareAlike-1.0 -> CC-SA-1.0 |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> In total, about 100 packages are affected. so it's a minor effort. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Ulrich |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> [1] http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ |
| 40 |
> |
Archives