I propose we document that the license field should if possible contain an identifier from http://spdx.org/licenses/ http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org You think you know when you can learn, are more sure when you can write, even more when you can teach, but certain when you can program. — Alan Perlis
François-René ÐVB Rideau écrivait:
I propose we document that the license field should if possible contain an identifier from http://spdx.org/licenses/ http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867
Good idea, although it seems to be missing the GNU All Permissive license (the submission process looks quite cumbersome).
J'écrivais:
Good idea, although it seems to be missing the GNU All Permissive license (the submission process looks quite cumbersome).
Ended up doing it anyway.
On 10/16/15 Oct 16 -2:03 PM, Faré wrote:
I propose we document that the license field should if possible contain an identifier from http://spdx.org/licenses/ http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org You think you know when you can learn, are more sure when you can write, even more when you can teach, but certain when you can program. — Alan Perlis
I like this idea, but I'm going to push it out past 3.1.6.
Starting to work on the release chores now...
On 10/16/15 Oct 16 -2:03 PM, Faré wrote:
I propose we document that the license field should if possible contain an identifier from http://spdx.org/licenses/ http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867
Do you expect this field to be a string, or should it be encoded in some special way (e.g., a keyword representation of the identifier)?
If we do the latter, we could check it but (a) this would bloat ASDF further and (b) it would incur a maintenance debt in perpetuity as the set of SPDX identifiers changes.
One more question: What if the software is NOT open source?
Cheers, r
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
On 10/16/15 Oct 16 -2:03 PM, Faré wrote:
I propose we document that the license field should if possible contain an identifier from http://spdx.org/licenses/ http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6867
Do you expect this field to be a string, or should it be encoded in some special way (e.g., a keyword representation of the identifier)?
If we do the latter, we could check it but (a) this would bloat ASDF further and (b) it would incur a maintenance debt in perpetuity as the set of SPDX identifiers changes.
One more question: What if the software is NOT open source?
I was considering just a string for now, as has always been. Then a linter could go over the packages in Quicklisp and check that they are all open source with a proper SPDX license string. For closed source code, I don't know — probably "Proprietary" or something would do — or just anything not valid per SPDX.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org ...so this guy walks into a bar. "The usual, Mr. Descartes?" the barman asked. "I think not," Rene replied, and promptly disappeared.
François-René ÐVB Rideau écrivait:
I was considering just a string for now
FWIW, I'm also in favor of strings. Using symbols is risky for case-sensitiveness.
-
Didier Verna -
Faré -
Robert Goldman