On Wednesday 05 February 2014 00:18:41 Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 5 February 2014 00:05, Daniel Holth <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oh, I hadn't seen SPDX before - very interesting. I'm wondering if it > >> may be a better fit for the PyPI Trove classifiers though - then it > >> wouldn't even need to wait for metadata 2.0, we could just add them to > >> the list of supported classifiers > >> (https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=list_classifiers) and projects > >> could start listing them in their current metadata. > >> > >> Something like: > >> License :: SPDX :: <tag> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Nick. > > > > Those SPDX are great. They could certainly go into either license or > > into a trove classifier, the difference being the trove classifiers > > are checked against a static list. > > The main advantage I can see to going the classifier route is that it > means not having to wait for metadata 2.0 to promote them - folks can > start using them as soon as they're registered on PyPI. > > It also avoids compatibility issues when attempting to convert the > many current projects with unclear license terms to metadata 2.0, > while still making it easy for distro repackagers to offer upstream > patches or bug reports to request license clarifications. > > However, I do like the idea of having metadata 2.0 encourage the use > of OSI approved SPDX tags in the license field. I just don't think we > can upgrade that from a SHOULD to a MUST without breaking too many > packages :(
I agree, it has to be a SHOULD of some sort. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Sascha Peilicke _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
