Jelle Licht transcribed 2.3K bytes: > > ng0 <[email protected]> writes: > > > I've just read this link: > > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2 > > > > Full Quote: > > > >> In this article, For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say "Licensed under GNU > >> GPL 2"!, Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman (RMS) > >> explains how to properly identify what GNU license your work is under. > >> Whenever a developer releases their work under a GNU license, they have > >> the option to either release it under that version of the license only, or > >> to make it available under any later version of that license. This option > >> ensures that software can remain compatible with future versions of the > >> license. But what happens if someone just says their program is under GNU > >> GPL version 2, for example? > >> > >>> [T]hey are leaving the licensing of the program unclear. Is it > >>> released under GPL-2.0-only, or GPL-2.0-or-later? Can you merge the code > >>> with packages released under GPL-3.0-or-later? > >> > >> Thus, it is vitally important that developers indicate in their license > >> notices whether they are licensing their work under that version "only" or > >> under "any later version." Of course, these days it is also helpful for > >> license notices to be machine-readable. The Software Package Data Exchange > >> (SPDX) specification sets a standardized way of identifying licenses on > >> software packages. They are updating their license identifiers to include > >> this distinction in their upcoming version. For example, for GNU GPL > >> version 2, the identifiers are now "GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later." The > >> old identifiers (e.g. "GPL-2.0") are now deprecated and should no longer > >> be used. Based on the changes SPDX says are coming in the SPDX > >> specification and its Web site, the FSF expects to endorse the new version > >> of the SPDX. We thank SPDX and their community for making these helpful > >> changes. > > > > > > Maybe we could make use of what https://spdx.org/licenses/ > > provides. I didn't compare the names with our names, I'll do > > this on the train next week. > > Good idea, bad idea? > > We already have a `spdx-string->license' function in > `(guix import utils)', in case you need a starting point. It > makes sense to me to use a de facto way of referring to licenses, > but I am not sure whether this has some disadvantages compared to the > currently used way of referring to licenses. > > - Jelle
My "problem", or rather the question I pose is: Does it make sense to adjust how the license is displayed? Like instead of "GPL 2" We'd display "GPL 2.0 only" and instead of "GPL 2+" (no example at hand to test if this is the current display) we'd display "GPL 2 or later". -- GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 GnuPG: https://c.n0.is/ng0_pubkeys/tree/keys WWW: https://n0.is
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
