Le Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:01:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 > > Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft
Sorry for this, I had to jump in the train where I did the work, so I grabbed the easiest to download. I just looked at the bzr version and it looks the same. > > - SPDX contains a BSD-3-Clauses and a BSD-3-Clauses license, where > ^^^^^ > one of these two is a typo, I take? Yes, BSD-4-Clauses > > some parts (year, copyright, organization) are substituted with > > placeholders. This can not work with DEP5, because of its > > standalone license sections. > > If I understand correctly, that simply means that SPDX offers a more > compact representation of something that in DEP-5 will be more verbose, > is that it? If yes, it's not a big deal and can be changed later on, > without affecting backward compatibility. In DEP-5, if there are two files with their license derived from the BSD license by changing the year, copryight and organisation name, we need to use a different short name for each, otherwise there is the possibility to infringe or at least mess with one of the licenses, by displaying the wrong organisation name in the non-endorsement clause. I do not know how SPDX solves the problem. But I note that they are inconsistent with the BSD-2-Clauses, that has no placeholders, so they may probably change one or the other at some point. > > - ‘or any later version’ is represented in SPDX as a different > > license, with a short name ending by a plus, like ‘GPL-3.0+’. > > How is this different from DEP5? Not much, but in my understanding of DEP5, GPL-3.0+ is not a different license from GPL-3.0. The information that any later version is acceptable is usually found outside the license's text, such as in a README or in the files boilerplates. Consistently, it is acceptable to point at /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 for a GPL-3.0+ work. But this difference is probably very pedantic… > > - SPDX's MIT license is from: > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html. > > I don't get this difference, can you please expand? DEP-5 notes that several variants of the MIT license exist. I simply indicated which is the one chosen by SPDX. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101216161938.ga19...@merveille.plessy.net