@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.
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).
OK, I will do so. I will CC you on the PRs.
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
Reading the SPDX documentation, it seems
OR should be used.
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
Unless someone objects, I would follow the suggestion of Guillaume and use
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
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