Re: license naming

[Jelle Licht]

ng0 <address@hidden> 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