Stream: Coq Platform devs & users

Topic: License of Gappa and Coq-Gappa in Opam

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Oct 08 2021 at 10:37):

@Guillaume Melquiond : I just saw that you you dual licensed gappa and coq-gappa a few months back. This change doesn't seem to be reflected in the opam packages. Shall I update the opam packages or do you want to do this? I didn't push the latest gappa package as yet btw., will do so today or tomorrow.

view this post on Zulip Guillaume Melquiond (Oct 08 2021 at 11:49):

Actually, it has always been dual-licensed (this was already the case in 2006). But for some reason, either it was not apparent or it got lost somehow. Feel free to fix the Opam package (not sure if it is possible to dual license at the Opam level).

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Oct 08 2021 at 11:52):

OK, I will do so. I will CC you on the PRs.

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Oct 08 2021 at 11:56):

can we get a consistent notation of the opam license field for multiple-licensed packages? See a related discussion which seems to conclude that the / divider is not really a good idea: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/2039

view this post on Zulip Guillaume Melquiond (Oct 08 2021 at 12:01):

Reading the SPDX documentation, it seems OR should be used.

view this post on Zulip Guillaume Melquiond (Oct 08 2021 at 12:04):

If presented with a choice between two or more licenses, use the disjunctive binary "OR" operator to construct a new license expression, where both the left and right operands are valid license expression values. For example, when given a choice between the LGPL-2.1-only or MIT licenses, a valid expression would be: LGPL-2.1-only OR MIT

view this post on Zulip Michael Soegtrop (Oct 08 2021 at 13:40):

Unless someone objects, I would follow the suggestion of Guillaume and use OR.

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (Oct 14 2021 at 20:27):

it seems that in the opam repo, they are using a list of SPDX identifiers in case of dual-licensing:

license: ["LGPL-3.0-only" "LGPL-2.0-only"]

Taken from here: https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/blob/e69c0bc188f89331fa9dc2f757223e04e6364fe7/packages/gmp/gmp.6.2.1-1/opam#L3

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (Oct 15 2021 at 06:22):

Well then we should fix the opam repo. Because there's one SPDX convention and they're not following it.

Last updated: Jun 03 2023 at 05:01 UTC