Your message dated Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:39:28 +0200 (CEST)
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: base-files: Disambiguation of Artistic license file name
has caused the Debian Bug report #706619,
regarding base-files: Disambiguation of Artistic license file name
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
706619: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=706619
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: base-files
Version: 7.1
Severity: wishlist
Currently, /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic holds the license
identified with the SPDX registered identifier "Artistic-1.0".
http://spdx.org/licenses/
There are also 2 other Artistic licenses around:
* "Artistic-2.0" (SPDX registered)
* "Clarified Artistic License" by Bradley Kuhn
Since all other files for licenses use SPDX registered name as the file
name while keeping symlinks for old license ID names, I think it is good
idea to follow this convention. Otherwise, it will be misleading and
confusing once PERL6 becomes more popular.
When you do this, there is 2 ways for making the symlink for Artistic:
* Add Artistic-2.0 file and point Artistic to there like other cases.
* Point Artistic to Artistic-1.0.
I do not have answer which way should be done. I leave this call to
others. (Maintainer? Debian legal?)
I think this change should be coordinated with wiki page and policy text:
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_Artistic_License
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
=== Side note ===
It was a bit confusing for me. Here is my summary:
* "Artistic-1.0" Perl5 (not approved by the FSF)
http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_1_0
* "Artistic-2.0" Perl6 (approved by the FSF)
http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0
* Bradley Kuhn's "Clarified Artistic License" (approved by the FSF)
http://gianluca.dellavedova.org/2011/01/03/clarified-artistic-license/
The most authoritative background information seems to be here:
http://www.theperlreview.com/Interviews/allison-randal-artistic-license.html
Wikipedia article is also the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License
The Debian wiki page was a bit confusing since its URL link for
"Clarified Artistic License" only point to Artistic-2.0.
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_Artistic_License
| The Artistic License
|
| http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
|
| Perl is licensed under the Artistic License.
|
| Do note that the Artistic License is considered non-free by the FSF.
| They suggest to use the Clarified Artistic License (also called Artistic
| License 2.0) instead. However, the original Artistic License is still
| considered DFSG-free.
This should be more like:
| Do note that the Artistic License 1.0 is considered non-free by the FSF.
| They suggest to use the Bradley Kuhn's Clarified Artistic License or
| Artistic License 2.0 instead. However, the original Artistic License
| is still considered DFSG-free.
While making URL references for all licenses.
Regards,
Osamu
PS: I cced Charles since he maintain Debian wiki page mentioned above.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 7.1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Currently, /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic holds the license
> identified with the SPDX registered identifier "Artistic-1.0".
> http://spdx.org/licenses/
>
> There are also 2 other Artistic licenses around:
> * "Artistic-2.0" (SPDX registered)
> * "Clarified Artistic License" by Bradley Kuhn
>
> Since all other files for licenses use SPDX registered name as the file
> name while keeping symlinks for old license ID names, I think it is good
> idea to follow this convention. Otherwise, it will be misleading and
> confusing once PERL6 becomes more popular.
>
> When you do this, there is 2 ways for making the symlink for Artistic:
> * Add Artistic-2.0 file and point Artistic to there like other cases.
> * Point Artistic to Artistic-1.0.
>
> I do not have answer which way should be done. I leave this call to
> others. (Maintainer? Debian legal?)
I think it is too soon for that.
Moreover, there is a procedure for adding licenses to common-licenses
which is explained in the base-files FAQ. I think the logical thing to
do is to follow the same procedure to decide about naming the current ones
(i.e. have debian-policy changed first, then I would follow debian-policy).
BTW: While searching for "perl 6 release date" I found funny things like this
one:
http://www.dagolden.com/index.php/1913/is-perl-6-pointless-hopeless-or-just-not-done/
Thanks.
--- End Message ---
