Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update LGPL licenses #69

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Update LGPL licenses #69

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

PuneetGopinath
Copy link

@PuneetGopinath PuneetGopinath commented May 7, 2021

Request to add a new Trove classifier.

The name of the classifier(s) you would like to add:

  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.0 only (LGPLv2.0-only)
  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.0 or later (LGPLv2.0-or-later)
  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 only (LGPLv2.1-only)
  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later (LGPLv2.1-or-later)

Why do you want to add this classifier?

See #68, I wanted to add LGPL v2.1 but after seeing #17, I added all revisions required for Lesser General Public License (in different versions) and depreciated the old ones classifiers.

@remram44
Copy link

remram44 commented May 7, 2021

If you are putting short IDs in parentheses, I think you should consider using the official SPDX identifiers of those licenses:

  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.0 (LGPL-2.0-only)
  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.0 or later (LGPL-2.0-or-later)
  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 (LGPL-2.1-only)
  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later (LGPL-2.1-or-later)
  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 (LGPL-3.0-only)
  • License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later (LGPL-3.0-or-later)

Edit: I forgot this was what #17 was about. There is no consensus on whether we should go this way, although doing this for new identifiers might be a good idea to avoid changes later. But then it's not consistent with the existing GNU license identifiers.

Update according to #17 (comment)
@PuneetGopinath
Copy link
Author

PuneetGopinath commented May 7, 2021

@remram44 I updated now

UPDATE: You didn't include only in the license text (not in the text in brackets)
This is according to #17 (comment)

Ok should I change the depreciated ones back to normal and keep others also?

@PuneetGopinath
Copy link
Author

@remram44 So should I keep the new ones and the old ones without depreciating the old ones.
@di Mentioned (in #17 (comment)) that LGPL license used by < 831 projects

LICENSE no of projects
GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (LGPLv2) 128
GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later (LGPLv2+) 175
GNU Lesser General Public License v3 (LGPLv3) 831
GNU Lesser General Public License v3 or later (LGPLv3+) 502

So at least can we add LGPL v2.0 and v2.1, they are used by < 175 projects

@remram44
Copy link

remram44 commented May 8, 2021

I don't know 😐 I guess we need to wait for the higher-ups to get to a consensus...

@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member

Hi there!

This project is maintained by volunteers, who have limited availability. They will come around to this as they are able to find the free time and motivation to do so. @-mentioning folks does not serve to speed up anything, beyond causing annoying notifications for the folks being mentioned.

I'd suggest being patient here and following up about a week from now, if there's no response.

@PuneetGopinath
Copy link
Author

Hi there!

This project is maintained by volunteers, who have limited availability. They will come around to this as they are able to find the free time and motivation to do so. @-mentioning folks does not serve to speed up anything, beyond causing annoying notifications for the folks being mentioned.

I'd suggest being patient here and following up about a week from now, if there's no response.

Thanks

@PuneetGopinath
Copy link
Author

A week over

@PuneetGopinath
Copy link
Author

2 months over

@di
Copy link
Member

di commented Aug 4, 2021

I think this is blocked on making a decision on #17. In the meantime, projects can always use the License field to declare a license if there is not a sufficient classifier.

@di di added the blocked label Aug 4, 2021
Comment on lines +773 to +776
"License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (LGPLv2)",
"License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later (LGPLv2+)",
"License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v3 (LGPLv3)",
"License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v3 or later (LGPLv3+)",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a dict, these should be a mapping from a deprecated classifier name to a list of one or more classifiers that should be used in place of it.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, should I update. Anyways you told this is blocked.

@PuneetGopinath PuneetGopinath closed this by deleting the head repository Jan 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants