Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Adding 'GPL-2-only', 'GPL-3-only' etc. license variants for better auditing

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Jason Zaman wrote:

> The "GPL-2.0" one is deprecated:
> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html

> If SPDX moved to having two names "-only" and "-or-later" then we
> should too.

The main problem is that we will always have licenses that are not in
their list. So if they add them later, chances are that we would have to
rename ours, forcing our users to update their ACCEPT_LICENSE variable
and possibly reinstall packages.

Generally, it is also not predictable what they will choose as an
identifier. For example, there is "BSD-2-Clause" but "0BSD". Sometimes
they stick with the upstream version (e.g. CDDL-1.0), sometimes they
invent their own (GPL-2.0-only), and sometimes they drop the version
altogether (WTFPL). In addition, they change their names, which would
make it even more difficult to catch up.

So, we can use SPDX as a guideline when adding _new_ licenses, but I
don't see any good reason for renaming existing ones. Especially when
the SPDX identifiers aren't stable.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]