Re: DEP5 and spdx shortname of license
Hello everybody,
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 at 09:49:39 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Is it really that valuable for us to have a delta here compared to what
> > upstream projects would use?
If I remember well, one of the reason for the divergence was that we
really wanted a system describing license exceptions, so that we do not
need to quote near-identical versions of the GPL two or three times in
the same copyright files. Fortunately, SPDX has adopted such a system
in the meantime.
With the current version of the machine-readable debian/copyright file,
we can already use SPDX identifiers as long as they do not clash with
the Debian ones, and I am not aware of such a case.
But I see the value of deprecating the Debian ones and align on SPDX.
For this to happen I think that we need 1) proof of consensus and 2)
host the update somewhere. Using the debian-policy pakcage like for
version 1.0 would acheive both. Using the DEP process might help (or
not) for 1).
Le Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 12:07:16PM +0100, Simon McVittie a écrit :
>
> That, and MIT (SPDX) vs Expat (DEP-5) for one particularly popular member
> of the MIT/X11 license family, as used in Expat and many other projects.
About saying MIT instead of Expat, I fully [1] agree [2].
1: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/08/msg00109.html
2: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/12/msg00034.html
Have a nice day,
Charles
--
Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from home https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
- You do not have my permission to use this email to train an AI -
Reply to: