user [email protected] usertags 696185 normative discussion thanks
Hi all, the specificaiton already states: If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name, an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses. http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-field (second paragraph) I am not sure if it is necessary to repeat this in other sections. For SPDX, my personal opinion is that, in absence of a good reason to diverge, we should use the same short names. Other projects, such as the OSI are also using them (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical), and I think that there is a value in using a common vocabulary. I would be in favor of formally recommending to follow SPDX in a later revision of the specification, but before this we would need a consensus on stopping calling the MIT license "Expat", so I am quite inclined to wait longer and see how the SPDX short names establish themselves in other projects. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Illkirch-Graffendstaden, France -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
