Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] License naming in APKBUILD - SPDX License List

From: Przemysław Pawełczyk <>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 15:29:23 +0100

---- On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 12:16:27 +0100 Carlo Landmeter <> wrote ----
> On 30 December 2017 at 16:07, Przemysław Pawełczyk <> wrote:
> >
> > So any new APKBUILD file should properly fill license field.
> > We should be able to fix all old APKBUILD files before Alpine Linux 3.8.
> > IIRC there were some volunteers for this task in the past already.
> >
> I worked out a small patch[1] with ncopa to check for valid SPDX
> licenses inside abuild.
> I also added an aport[2] to aports which includes all licences
> (including a list pkg which abuild uses).

Thanks for doing this, Carlo!

My only concern is the name of the option: !spdx

SPDX effort is not only about their license list (even if they're most
known for it), therefore I wouldn't use their name in option as-is,
because it's too broad and too ambiguous.

Wouldn't simple !license be much more explicit and clear?

What do you think?

> We decided to issue a warning instead of error because too many
> packages will be affected and
> could create havoc for first time contributors.

I understand such approach, but I'm not sure it's a good solution to
move forward.

Read also (*) below.

> 1.
> 2.

I would also like to thank Jakub for commit 63f5e7d29565 (2017-12-30):

    [various]: unify names of licenses according to SPDX

bringing us a few steps closer toward coherent license naming.

(*) Beside unified license naming, some additional effort is needed for
making license info correct, which may not always be the case yet.
(It's actually better to have no license info than have it wrong.)

To make such effort coordinated (we have a lot of packages, so it needs
to be coordinated somehow, no doubt about it), I would suggest adding
!license to almost all APKBUILDs (almost, because some of them were also
recently fixed, and some new ones already have proper license).

We would remove !license from APKBUILD when license field is confirmed
to be correct in the given package.

What do you think?

> -carlo


P.S. Happy New Year 2018! Maybe it will be Alpine Linux year? :)

Received on Tue Jan 02 2018 - 15:29:23 UTC