From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:44:02 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/6] python-mwscrape: use documented license abbreviation In-Reply-To: <20170323100041.45149296@free-electrons.com> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:00:41 +0100") References: <1490204935-13172-1-git-send-email-rahul.bedarkar@imgtec.com> <1490204935-13172-4-git-send-email-rahul.bedarkar@imgtec.com> <20170322213900.3ace3cc4@free-electrons.com> <20170322223212.GA3591@free.fr> <3e6647c5-8b47-d1c1-a0fa-3cbf120759ec@mind.be> <20170323100041.45149296@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <87fuhx6gul.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni 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! -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard