| Message ID | 1490204935-13172-4-git-send-email-rahul.bedarkar@imgtec.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Hello, On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:18:53 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote: > PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_VERSION = 6a58d7801eb1e884fd0516f1adbedbd4481c10e6 > PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_SITE = $(call github,itkach,mwscrape,$(PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_VERSION)) > -PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE = MPL-2.0 > +PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE = MPLv2.0 Well, our idea was to use the SPDX license codes as much as possible, and MPL-2.0 is the correct SPDX license code for this license. However, it is true we haven't used SPDX from the beginning, so we're using GPLv2 everywhere, while SPDX uses GPL-2.0. See: https://spdx.org/licenses/ I think our idea was to keep using GPLv2/LGPLv2.1/GPLv3, but for all other licenses, use the SPDX code as much as possible. Maybe we should bite the bullet, and migrate all packages to use SPDX license codes? Arnout, Yann, Peter? Best regards, Thomas
Thomas, All, On 2017-03-22 21:39 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:18:53 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote: > > > PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_VERSION = 6a58d7801eb1e884fd0516f1adbedbd4481c10e6 > > PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_SITE = $(call github,itkach,mwscrape,$(PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_VERSION)) > > -PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE = MPL-2.0 > > +PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE = MPLv2.0 > > Well, our idea was to use the SPDX license codes as much as possible, > and MPL-2.0 is the correct SPDX license code for this license. However, > it is true we haven't used SPDX from the beginning, so we're using > GPLv2 everywhere, while SPDX uses GPL-2.0. > > See: > > https://spdx.org/licenses/ > > I think our idea was to keep using GPLv2/LGPLv2.1/GPLv3, but for all > other licenses, use the SPDX code as much as possible. > > Maybe we should bite the bullet, and migrate all packages to use SPDX > license codes? That would have my approval, yes. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. > Arnout, Yann, Peter? > > Best regards, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > http://free-electrons.com
On 22-03-17 23:32, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Thomas, All, > > On 2017-03-22 21:39 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:18:53 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote: >> >>> PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_VERSION = 6a58d7801eb1e884fd0516f1adbedbd4481c10e6 >>> PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_SITE = $(call github,itkach,mwscrape,$(PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_VERSION)) >>> -PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE = MPL-2.0 >>> +PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE = MPLv2.0 >> >> Well, our idea was to use the SPDX license codes as much as possible, >> and MPL-2.0 is the correct SPDX license code for this license. However, >> it is true we haven't used SPDX from the beginning, so we're using >> GPLv2 everywhere, while SPDX uses GPL-2.0. >> >> See: >> >> https://spdx.org/licenses/ >> >> I think our idea was to keep using GPLv2/LGPLv2.1/GPLv3, but for all >> other licenses, use the SPDX code as much as possible. >> >> Maybe we should bite the bullet, and migrate all packages to use SPDX >> license codes? > > That would have my approval, yes. Indeed, I've been thinking about doing this. Now we just have to find a volunteer to construct the necessary sed magic :-) BTW I would propose to do this in one mega-patch that does mechanical substitution in all the .mk files (make sure the commit log contains the scriptlet that does it), and a second patch to fix the documentation. If it makes things easier, the mega-patch could be split up into separate patches for the different versions. Oh, and for the documentation update: perhaps we should remove the list of licenses from our documentation, and instead refer only to spdx.org? I just notice now: we currently don't refer to SPDX at all in the documentation! That would explain Rahul's confusion about the proper license string... Oh, and scancpan and scanpypi have to be updated as well. Regards, Arnout > > Regards, > Yann E. MORIN. > >> Arnout, Yann, Peter? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Thomas >> -- >> Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons >> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering >> http://free-electrons.com >
Hello, On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:25:11 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >> I think our idea was to keep using GPLv2/LGPLv2.1/GPLv3, but for all > >> other licenses, use the SPDX code as much as possible. > >> > >> Maybe we should bite the bullet, and migrate all packages to use SPDX > >> license codes? > > > > That would have my approval, yes. > > Indeed, I've been thinking about doing this. OK, so let's just do it :) The only thing that we might consider is the impact of this change for our users. Are people parsing the CSV output, and checking if there is no GPLv3 for example? Such checks would no longer match. But longer term, I believe we will give our users a much more logical/stable situation if we use SPDX codes everywhere rather than the clunky mix we have today. > Now we just have to find a volunteer to construct the necessary sed magic :-) > > BTW I would propose to do this in one mega-patch that does mechanical > substitution in all the .mk files (make sure the commit log contains the > scriptlet that does it), and a second patch to fix the documentation. If it > makes things easier, the mega-patch could be split up into separate patches for > the different versions. One patch for each license change would be nice IMO. > Oh, and for the documentation update: perhaps we should remove the list of > licenses from our documentation, and instead refer only to spdx.org? I just > notice now: we currently don't refer to SPDX at all in the documentation! That > would explain Rahul's confusion about the proper license string... Agreed. > Oh, and scancpan and scanpypi have to be updated as well. Agreed. Best regards, Thomas
Hello, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes: > Hello, > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:25:11 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > >> I think our idea was to keep using GPLv2/LGPLv2.1/GPLv3, but for all > > >> other licenses, use the SPDX code as much as possible. > > >> > > >> Maybe we should bite the bullet, and migrate all packages to use SPDX > > >> license codes? > > > > > > That would have my approval, yes. > > > > Indeed, I've been thinking about doing this. > > OK, so let's just do it :) I can have a look. But I think I won't be able to post initial version until end of next week because of my travel. Thanks, Rahul
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes: > Hello, > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:25:11 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> >> I think our idea was to keep using GPLv2/LGPLv2.1/GPLv3, but for all >> >> other licenses, use the SPDX code as much as possible. >> >> >> >> Maybe we should bite the bullet, and migrate all packages to use SPDX >> >> license codes? >> > >> > That would have my approval, yes. >> >> Indeed, I've been thinking about doing this. > OK, so let's just do it :) Agreed! > The only thing that we might consider is the impact of this change for > our users. Are people parsing the CSV output, and checking if there is > no GPLv3 for example? Such checks would no longer match. I haven't heard about anybody doing that, but as long as we mention it in the release notes I don't think it is a big issue. > But longer term, I believe we will give our users a much more > logical/stable situation if we use SPDX codes everywhere rather than > the clunky mix we have today. Yes, me too!
diff --git a/package/python-mwscrape/python-mwscrape.mk b/package/python-mwscrape/python-mwscrape.mk index 47b943f..5054675 100644 --- a/package/python-mwscrape/python-mwscrape.mk +++ b/package/python-mwscrape/python-mwscrape.mk @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_VERSION = 6a58d7801eb1e884fd0516f1adbedbd4481c10e6 PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_SITE = $(call github,itkach,mwscrape,$(PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_VERSION)) -PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE = MPL-2.0 +PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE = MPLv2.0 PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.txt PYTHON_MWSCRAPE_SETUP_TYPE = distutils
For MPL version 2.0, we use MPLv2.0 as license abbreviation. Signed-off-by: Rahul Bedarkar <rahul.bedarkar@imgtec.com> --- package/python-mwscrape/python-mwscrape.mk | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)