I always wondered why we are using such bulky names like CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 for the Creative Commons licenses, instead of CC-BY-SA-2.5 like everyone else. The latter also used by our documentation pages and is the name in the SPDX license list [1],
So, while in general I'm against renaming of licenses (e.g., it would be pointless to rename our GPL-2 to GPL-2.0 in order to conform to the SPDX list), I think that in this case we should get rid of these long names which unnecessarily clutter the output of various tools. The plan would be as follows: CC0-1.0-Universal -> CC0-1.0 CCPL-Attribution-2.0 -> CC-BY-2.0 CCPL-Attribution-2.5 -> CC-BY-2.5 CCPL-Attribution-3.0 -> CC-BY-3.0 CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-ND-2.5 CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 -> CC-BY-ND-3.0 CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.0 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 CCPL-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5 CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 -> CC-BY-SA-2.0 CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.5 -> CC-BY-SA-2.5 CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-3.0 -> CC-BY-SA-3.0 CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-2.5 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-3.0 -> CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 -> CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 CCPL-ShareAlike-1.0 -> CC-SA-1.0 In total, about 100 packages are affected. so it's a minor effort. Ulrich [1] http://www.spdx.org/licenses/
