1 |
I always wondered why we are using such bulky names like |
2 |
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 for the Creative Commons licenses, |
3 |
instead of CC-BY-SA-2.5 like everyone else. The latter also used by |
4 |
our documentation pages and is the name in the SPDX license list [1], |
5 |
|
6 |
So, while in general I'm against renaming of licenses (e.g., it would |
7 |
be pointless to rename our GPL-2 to GPL-2.0 in order to conform to the |
8 |
SPDX list), I think that in this case we should get rid of these long |
9 |
names which unnecessarily clutter the output of various tools. |
10 |
|
11 |
The plan would be as follows: |
12 |
|
13 |
CC0-1.0-Universal -> CC0-1.0 |
14 |
CCPL-Attribution-2.0 -> CC-BY-2.0 |
15 |
CCPL-Attribution-2.5 -> CC-BY-2.5 |
16 |
CCPL-Attribution-3.0 -> CC-BY-3.0 |
17 |
CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-ND-2.5 |
18 |
CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 -> CC-BY-ND-3.0 |
19 |
CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.0 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 |
20 |
CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5 |
21 |
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 -> CC-BY-SA-2.0 |
22 |
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 -> CC-BY-SA-2.5 |
23 |
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-3.0 -> CC-BY-SA-3.0 |
24 |
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 |
25 |
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-3.0 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 |
26 |
CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 -> CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 |
27 |
CCPL-ShareAlike-1.0 -> CC-SA-1.0 |
28 |
|
29 |
In total, about 100 packages are affected. so it's a minor effort. |
30 |
|
31 |
Ulrich |
32 |
|
33 |
[1] http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ |