I just posted another message about this "License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER" idea that various folks approached me about at LinuxCon. As I noted in that message, if SPDX identifiers are going to be used "in the wild" not merely as an internal representation for SPDX experts, but also for mere mortals looking at a file to see what the license is, then the identifier list needs an overhaul.
Not only is there the problem that I mentioned in my other email: > However, I will have to register my complaint again that GPL-2.0 is a > *horrible* identifier for GPLv2-only, mainly because of how GPLv2ยง9 > works. Saying "GPL-2.0" to refer to GPLv2-only is misleading and > confusing and should be corrected. But there remains the issues that I wrote about more than a year ago, back in June/July 2012: > I don't even *know* of any package in the world that's licensed under > "GPLv2-only along with any given 'GCC exception'". There is actually > *no such thing* as a single "GPL-2.0-with-GCC-exception". The GPLv2'd > versions of GCC actually have a patchwork of *different* exceptions > that are all worded slightly differently and appear throughout various > directories in the sources. When I helped lead the process of > drafting the GPLv3 RTL exception, one of our primary goals was to > encompass and rectify the differences in the various GPLv2 exceptions > for GCC. I just took a peak at https://spdx.org/licenses/ and see that after a year, this problem still hasn't been corrected. I ask again, how exactly does one write an SPDX file for GCC? :) Finally, I must note again, upon taking a peak at SPDX for the first time in a year, that it's frustrating for a technical person to get involved. While I appreciate that you took my advice from a year ago and recently created a Git repository for the license list, I find that it appears the key document in that repository is a spreadsheet (!), which isn't ASCII diffable nor usable with any Git tools. (See: http://git.spdx.org/?p=license-list.git;a=commit;h=762d769105765c28308569ad48080deca65db98e ) This is one step forward and two steps back, sadly. :( -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
