[Catalog-sig] trove - LGPL v3 not recognised?

"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Mon Nov 14 08:44:00 CET 2011

> In pypi, we currently have the following license classifiers:
> License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License (GPL)
> License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
> These are different than the originally proposed classifier above in two
> ways -- lack of version specification and the use of the common short form.
> Common short form is easy to add (as I did in my examples above).

What's the "common short form"? If it's the abbreviation (i.e. "GPL"),
they already have it, no?

> The question of whether to add version specifiers to these classifiers is
> more complex.  I think we should add the classifiers for (L)GPLv2 as well as
> the ones for (L)GPLv3 as those are explicit expressions of the code's
> licenses.

Fine with me.

> But that doesnt mean that the current classifiers should go away.

Most certainly not. Once a classifier has been added, it can *never* go
away. That's why I ask people really think carefully whether they
really need a classifier, in exactly that spelling, before it's added.

> If they don't go away, module authors will be able to continue to upload new
> modules with these classifiers.  This is undesirable because the
> classification does not give enough information to consumers of the code to
> tell if there will be license conflicts in their projects.

I don't see that as a problem. Hopefully, the code itself gives enough
information. So if people can't know for sure, and if they need to know
(which they often don't), they need to check the source. The trove
classifier shouldn't be considered legally binding.

People like you (i.e. distribution packagers) can start going around and
ask authors to update their classifiers. Over time, all current packages
would use the correct classifiers.


More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list