On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > >* SPDX has BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses with placeholders > > => ignore: we'll just have many variants of BSD (called > > other-FOO or whatever) > > Related to this, there are few oddities regarding "other" licenses: > > In Files section the License field is required but allowed to be > completely empty (as long as a later License section named "other" is > included). I suggest simplifying to always require an explicit license > shortname (i.e. drop the implicit "other" name).
Agreed. Done. > The License shortname list includes an "other" name describes as being > "any other custom license". Nowhere is it explicitly described that > other-FOO or FOO is allowed in addition to the officially listed > shortnames. I suggest to replace that final "other" shortname in the > list with a short text decribing explicitly that a) any custom names is > permitted, b) it is encouraged to use a custom name that might be > suitable for later adoption in the official list, and c) it is > encouraged to use a leading "other-" for exotic licenses unsuitable for > adoption in the list. The License field description includes this (after the above modification; the wording at the beginning was slightly different earlier): If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name, an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses. These arbitrary names are only guaranteed to be unique within a single copyright file. Should be clear enough. > NB! These comments are based on the latest published rev. 135 draft. If > fixed in later drafts, I apologize for the noise. That would be revision 135 in svn, not bzr, I assume. Go to http://bzr.debian.org/scm/loggerhead/dep/dep5/trunk/annotate/head:/dep5.mdwn to see the current revision in bzr. (Not sure why this is so hard to find.) > >* SPDX links to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html > > => add link to DEP5 > > Draft rev. 135 lists only Expat, but mentions MIT license as being > ambiguous. Is the ambifuity solved in newer revisions? Is Expat > preserved or replaced by MIT license? I don't actually see the ambiguity. Do you have a specific change to suggest? How would you word it? -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- 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/1292927182.23963.8.ca...@havelock.lan