You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We should be using standardized license identifiers[0] in all packages to distinguish between the various versions of licenses and clarify cases where dual licensing applies. From the FAQ[1]:
Q: How does one represent a file or package that is dual licensed (i.e., a license choice)?
A: SPDX license information can be represented using conjunctive or disjunctive regular expressions. For example, a file that is dual licensed under either the GPL-2.0 or MIT would be represented using the following disjunctive expression: (GPL-2.0 or MIT).
I can handle this task if you'd like, I love tedious and boring churn tasks like this.
The currently used licenses are from historically only having a docent, like GPL, BSD, MIT, ... and we already support listing multiple, like GPL BSD … and started to have versioned one like GPL3.
Do you want to propose a patch or maybe better set of sed regex mass substitute our use cases?
We should be using standardized license identifiers[0] in all packages to distinguish between the various versions of licenses and clarify cases where dual licensing applies. From the FAQ[1]:
I can handle this task if you'd like, I love tedious and boring churn tasks like this.
[0] https://spdx.org/licenses/
[1] https://wiki.spdx.org/view/SPDX_FAQ
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: