[od-discuss] Storage of license texts in the repo - a first pass

Fri Jun 28 04:50:46 UTC 2013

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>wrote:

> On 26 June 2013 20:54, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>
> And {license short name} really ought be same as used in
>> https://spdx.org/licenses/ or following that style.
>>
>
> We won't be storing open-source licenses (right?) so we should have the
> same short names. In terms of style what exactly is the SPDX "style"?
>

SPDX has several open content/data licenses in its list. I think it makes
sense to use same short identifiers they do in such cases for ease of cross
referencing.

I had assumed they had something more rigorous, but just
https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview

*License Identifier (aka "SPDX Short Identifier")*

   - Short identifier to be used to identify a license match to licenses
   contained on the SPDX-LL in the context of an SPDX file
   - Identifier should have no spaces in it
   - Identifier consists of a short name, abbreviation, or acronym for the
   license
   - Where applicable, license abbreviation will be followed by a dash and
   then the version number, in X.Y format

In practice I'd say they also use capitals unless there's a clear lowercase
letter in the name/acronym, and dashes as separators.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

> A quick, late, plug for CC's licence urls -
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/
>

Not sure what that'd mean in practice for this context. by-sa/2.0/uk three
directories deep? The full encoded URL as directory name?

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130627/4c7bbaae/attachment-0001.html>