| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Jason Zaman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The "GPL-2.0" one is deprecated: |
| 4 |
> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> If SPDX moved to having two names "-only" and "-or-later" then we |
| 7 |
> should too. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The main problem is that we will always have licenses that are not in |
| 10 |
their list. So if they add them later, chances are that we would have to |
| 11 |
rename ours, forcing our users to update their ACCEPT_LICENSE variable |
| 12 |
and possibly reinstall packages. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Generally, it is also not predictable what they will choose as an |
| 15 |
identifier. For example, there is "BSD-2-Clause" but "0BSD". Sometimes |
| 16 |
they stick with the upstream version (e.g. CDDL-1.0), sometimes they |
| 17 |
invent their own (GPL-2.0-only), and sometimes they drop the version |
| 18 |
altogether (WTFPL). In addition, they change their names, which would |
| 19 |
make it even more difficult to catch up. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So, we can use SPDX as a guideline when adding _new_ licenses, but I |
| 22 |
don't see any good reason for renaming existing ones. Especially when |
| 23 |
the SPDX identifiers aren't stable. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ulrich |
Archives