Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 01:51:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> One remaining question in my mind is whether we should take the >> opportunity of a format change to achieve a few other goals. The most >> obvious one would be to reconcile our short license identifiers with >> SPDX (probably by making our identifiers a superset of the SPDX ones). > The obvious objection to that would be the fact that the SPDX > identifiers are not set in stone; a future update of the SPDX > identifiers might then conflict with one of the identifiers that we add. > Either we'd need a rule to have identifiers namespaced (say, "spdx:mit", > and then use "debian:" as a non-spdx namespace, or some such), or a rule > to not have non-SPDX identifiers. A third option would be to tie each version of the copyright-format specification to a specific version of SPDX. I kind of like the namespacing idea, but maybe it's too complicated. > Personally, I have a preference towards the latter; it seems simpler, > and there is benefit to be had to encourage creating a new SPDX > identifier over having a "local" fix. We'd need to have some mechanism for one-off licenses. SPDX has a mechanism for that, although it's kind of ugly and only vaguely applicable. (I should probably fork this discussion off into another bug.) -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
