On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 01:59:48PM +0200, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> Hi
>
> This just came up on IRC. Thoughts on using the SPDX license list as valid
> license identifiers for all packages?
> https://spdx.org/licenses/
I like this idea.
I started looking into how this would be packaged. The
On 22 Oct 2019, at 12:43 pm -0500, Ivy Foster wrote:
> [] some licenses have optional exception clauses developers can
> add which might not be reflected in a standard Arch font array []
That's *license* array, not font array. Learn from my mistakes:
proofread your emails!
signature.asc
On 2019-10-22 15:01, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> It would also be a
>> little more accurate; eg. the SPDX allows for distinctions such as
>> "LGPL-3.0-or-later" vs. "LGPL-3.0-only".
>
> I thought we already managed that, but it seems in rather limited use
> these days looking at
On 22 Oct 2019, at 1:59 pm +0200, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> This just came up on IRC. Thoughts on using the SPDX license list as valid
> license identifiers for all packages?
> https://spdx.org/licenses/
> Most of the identifiers would change but we would have a consistent and
> much larger,
On 22/10/19 9:59 pm, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> It would also be a
> little more accurate; eg. the SPDX allows for distinctions such as
> "LGPL-3.0-or-later" vs. "LGPL-3.0-only".
I thought we already managed that, but it seems in rather limited use
these days looking at our -Si output. e.g.
Hi
This just came up on IRC. Thoughts on using the SPDX license list as valid
license identifiers for all packages?
https://spdx.org/licenses/
Most of the identifiers would change but we would have a consistent and
much larger, externally-maintained list to choose from. It would also be a
little
6 matches
Mail list logo
