Hi, Alex! At 2021-09-08T10:22:09+0200, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: > On 9/8/21 6:35 AM, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > I'd like to request a different choice of name for the SPDX license > > tag used by the man-pages documents affected by this change. > Completely agree! [...] > > Any of the above could be further prefixed with "Linux-" to > > reinforce the specificity to this project, of course. If pressed > > for a preference, I reckon I would pick "Linux-man-pages-copyleft". > > I like that name. Less historical, but more precise. Michael? > > Acked-by: Alejandro Colomar [...] > The identifier "Verbatim-man-pages" is already in SPDX, but it is yet > unreleased. They talked about releasing soon, so could you please > jump in there and propose that change to SPDX?: > I've submitted a PR to this project[1]. > BTW, does the "traditional GNU documentation license" have an SPDX > identifier? It appears to be present in SPDX as the "Latex2e" license[2]. LaTeX has a long history, so it's quite possible that it is the true origin of what I have called the "traditional GNU documentation license" for many years. This is a point worth researching; thanks for prompting me. > > I feel that the "VERBATIM" string is similarly misleading, but it's > > not presented as an SPDX license tag, and I see that its use is > > already well-entrenched. I expected to find something like a sed > > script in the man-pages scripts/ directory that manipulated lines > > matching '%%%LICENSE_START(' but failed to. Perhaps a convenient > > new moniker could be adopted to supersede "VERBATIM" in this > > context, once the SPDX tagging initiative is complete? > > The SPDX license text doesn't contain the LICENSE_START and > LICENSE_END lines, so if we change the name, there will be no traces > of VERBATIM (apart from the git history, that is). Sounds nice and clean! Regards, Branden [1] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1310 [2] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/src/Latex2e.xml