Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > - The GNU Free Documentation License is called GFDL in DEP5 and FDL > > in SPDX. SPDX does not provide a name for the ‘no invariants’ > > exception. > > Sounds like a good case where supporting two different names as > synonyms might be good, i.e. "FDL" and "GFDL" will mean the same > thing. They seem to be both quite widespread. How about that? Since both seem to be widespread as names for the same license, I don't think asking SPDX to use the redundant “GFDL” name is a good choice. The name “FDL” is consistent with “LGPL” and “GPL” (that is, they all work as “GNU FDL”, “GNU LGPL”, “GNU GPL”). So “FDL” is at least as correct as a name for the Free Documentation License: they all omit the “GNU” from the abbreviation. If anything, then, the name “GFDL” is inferior since it is inconsistent with the common abbreviations for other GNU licenses. Why, then, did Lars Wirzenius mark the following in the Wiki page <URL:http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=diff&rev1=508&rev2=509> on 2010-12-30: ===== Things that need to be done before DEP-5 is ready: + * Ask SPDX to rename FDL to GFDL. ===== I can't find a message in this thread explaining that. If anyone is to be asked to switch to a common name, I would think Debian should be asked to switch to the common and consistent “FDL” name already used by SPDX. Lars, can you point us to a rationale for that to-do item? -- \ “I fly Air Bizarre. You buy a combination one-way round-trip | `\ ticket. Leave any Monday, and they bring you back the previous | _o__) Friday. That way you still have the weekend.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgp66mv_lTFsY.pgp
Description: PGP signature