Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 01:51:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> One remaining question in my mind is whether we should take the
>> opportunity of a format change to achieve a few other goals. The most
>> obvious one would be to reconcile our short license identifiers with
>> SPDX (probably by making our identifiers a superset of the SPDX ones).
> The obvious objection to that would be the fact that the SPDX
> identifiers are not set in stone; a future update of the SPDX
> identifiers might then conflict with one of the identifiers that we add.
> Either we'd need a rule to have identifiers namespaced (say, "spdx:mit",
> and then use "debian:" as a non-spdx namespace, or some such), or a rule
> to not have non-SPDX identifiers.
A third option would be to tie each version of the copyright-format
specification to a specific version of SPDX.
I kind of like the namespacing idea, but maybe it's too complicated.
> Personally, I have a preference towards the latter; it seems simpler,
> and there is benefit to be had to encourage creating a new SPDX
> identifier over having a "local" fix.
We'd need to have some mechanism for one-off licenses. SPDX has a
mechanism for that, although it's kind of ugly and only vaguely
applicable.
(I should probably fork this discussion off into another bug.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: