1 |
On 7 February 2013 16:07, 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 |
> The plan would be as follows: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> CC0-1.0-Universal -> CC0-1.0 |
15 |
> CCPL-Attribution-2.0 -> CC-BY-2.0 |
16 |
> CCPL-Attribution-2.5 -> CC-BY-2.5 |
17 |
> CCPL-Attribution-3.0 -> CC-BY-3.0 |
18 |
> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-ND-2.5 |
19 |
> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 -> CC-BY-ND-3.0 |
20 |
> CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.0 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 |
21 |
> CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5 |
22 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 -> CC-BY-SA-2.0 |
23 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 -> CC-BY-SA-2.5 |
24 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-3.0 -> CC-BY-SA-3.0 |
25 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 |
26 |
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-3.0 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 |
27 |
> CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 -> CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 |
28 |
> CCPL-ShareAlike-1.0 -> CC-SA-1.0 |
29 |
> |
30 |
> In total, about 100 packages are affected. so it's a minor effort. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Ulrich |
33 |
> |
34 |
> [1] http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
Your plan makes sense to me, so +1 |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
Regards, |
41 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
42 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |