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

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Nov 14 20:40:55 CET 2011

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 08:44:00AM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > 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?
I was referring to Robert Collins's proposed::

  License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v3

Instead, I proposed it include the short form like the current GPL licenses:

  License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License v3 (LGPLv3)

> > 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.
<nod>  Fully understood.  I wanted to be explicit about the pros and cons of
each strategy (and agree that keeping classifiers forever seems better).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20111114/cd78309e/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list