[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEP5 and spdx shortname of license



Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-07 21:43:35)
> Hi, spdx has an ever-increasing usage. Today trying reuse tool I tried 
> to convert DEP5 d/copyright to REUSE.toml thinking a possible help to 
> some project upstream, when license and copyright "management" is not 
> good, converting from d/copyright (DEP5) which is better, for example 
> with additional parts resulting from research done on files that were 
> taken from other projects but did not contain headers with license and 
> copyright.
> 
> I noticed that even though reuse supports DEP5 the short license names 
> used by Debian (and partly by spdx but deprecated) were not supported.
> 
> So I wonder, is it possible to put in d/copyright DEP5 the short license 
> names using the spdx ones?
> 
> I supposeeven using them by default in the future could help the 
> contributors (especially the new ones)who already know and use spdx and 
> maybe it could help them to reduce the time of creation and management 
> of d/copyright files (unfortunately often long even using very useful 
> tools like decopy, licensecheck and lrc). What do you think?

DEP5 already encourages (but does not require) use of SPDX shortnames,
except where Debian and SPDX disagree on sensible naming.

See https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#spdx
and the historical notes at
https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#Differences_between_DEP5_and_SPDX

Do you have ideas on how to address the documented differences in naming
choices?

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: