ng0 <n...@n0.is> writes: > I've just read this link: > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2 > > Full Quote: > >> In this article, For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say "Licensed under GNU >> GPL 2"!, Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman (RMS) explains >> how to properly identify what GNU license your work is under. Whenever a >> developer releases their work under a GNU license, they have the option to >> either release it under that version of the license only, or to make it >> available under any later version of that license. This option ensures that >> software can remain compatible with future versions of the license. But what >> happens if someone just says their program is under GNU GPL version 2, for >> example? >> >>> [T]hey are leaving the licensing of the program unclear. Is it released >>> under GPL-2.0-only, or GPL-2.0-or-later? Can you merge the code with >>> packages released under GPL-3.0-or-later? >> >> Thus, it is vitally important that developers indicate in their license >> notices whether they are licensing their work under that version "only" or >> under "any later version." Of course, these days it is also helpful for >> license notices to be machine-readable. The Software Package Data Exchange >> (SPDX) specification sets a standardized way of identifying licenses on >> software packages. They are updating their license identifiers to include >> this distinction in their upcoming version. For example, for GNU GPL version >> 2, the identifiers are now "GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later." The old >> identifiers (e.g. "GPL-2.0") are now deprecated and should no longer be >> used. Based on the changes SPDX says are coming in the SPDX specification >> and its Web site, the FSF expects to endorse the new version of the SPDX. We >> thank SPDX and their community for making these helpful changes. > > > Maybe we could make use of what https://spdx.org/licenses/ > provides. I didn't compare the names with our names, I'll do > this on the train next week. > Good idea, bad idea?
We already have a `spdx-string->license' function in `(guix import utils)', in case you need a starting point. It makes sense to me to use a de facto way of referring to licenses, but I am not sure whether this has some disadvantages compared to the currently used way of referring to licenses. - Jelle
