Commit 99c6792
committed
annotations: Use SPDX License Expressions for licenses
Instead of comma-separated short identifiers, which have unclear
semantics (are the delimiters AND or OR?). I don't see any discussion
of the syntax for this field in [1] (which landed it), but I'd floaded
license expressions before in the sub-thread starting at [2]. Greg
had pushed back against my earlier proposal (licensing information on
descriptors) with [3]:
> No, that's not going to work at all, you can't properly describe the
> license for a whole layer in any form of a string that could be
> standardized or parsed. SPDX is great for describing the individual
> licenses of things, but not for a collection of things, which almost
> always has an arbitrary license (example, what's the license, in a
> simple string, for a Ubuntu base layer?)
But SPDX License Expression are both more expressive and better
defined than the current comma delimiters. Everything you could have
said with the comma-delimited string you can say more clearly with a
SPDX License Expression. And because the syntax is not OCI-specific,
you're more likely to be able to find tooling that handles these
values out of the box.
[1]: opencontainers/image-spec#636
[2]: opencontainers/image-spec#501 (comment)
[3]: opencontainers/image-spec#501 (comment)
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>1 parent e79929e commit 99c6792
1 file changed
+3
-1
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
25 | 25 | | |
26 | 26 | | |
27 | 27 | | |
28 | | - | |
| 28 | + | |
29 | 29 | | |
30 | 30 | | |
31 | 31 | | |
| |||
52 | 52 | | |
53 | 53 | | |
54 | 54 | | |
| 55 | + | |
| 56 | + | |
0 commit comments