Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-18 Thread Lars Wirzenius 
On ti, 2011-01-18 at 08:00 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I am hoping that given SPDX is advancing towards beta release, they will
> fill these pages in a not too long time. But in the meantime, we could
> add a link to their license table, if necessary:
> 
> diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn
> index 09da1e1..1b217de 100644
> --- a/dep5.mdwn
> +++ b/dep5.mdwn
> @@ -383,6 +383,9 @@ of that license, the short name is finished with a plus 
> sign.
>  For SPDX compatibility, trailing "dot-zeroes" are considered to be equal
>  to plainer version (e.g., "2.0.0" is considered equal to "2.0" and "2").
>  
> +Currently, the full text of the licenses is only available in the
> +[working version the SPDX license 
> list](http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list).
> +

Applied.

-- 
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/1295386758.3740.157.ca...@havelock.lan

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-17 Thread Jonas Smedegaard 

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:00:27AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:

Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :


It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now, although 
the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.


Was that deliberate?  I feel that it makes the current draft not 
appropriate for widespread use: as discussed in this subthread there 
is ambiguity on the exact wording of each BSD variant.


Hi Jonas,

I am hoping that given SPDX is advancing towards beta release, they 
will fill these pages in a not too long time. But in the meantime, we 
could add a link to their license table, if necessary:


diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn
index 09da1e1..1b217de 100644
--- a/dep5.mdwn
+++ b/dep5.mdwn
@@ -383,6 +383,9 @@ of that license, the short name is finished with a plus 
sign.
For SPDX compatibility, trailing "dot-zeroes" are considered to be equal
to plainer version (e.g., "2.0.0" is considered equal to "2.0" and "2").

+Currently, the full text of the licenses is only available in the
+[working version the SPDX license 
list](http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list).
+

[[!table data="""
**keyword** | **meaning**


Yes, I feel that would be helpful indeed - even if known to be 
temporary.



 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-17 Thread Charles Plessy 
Le Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:31:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> 
> It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now,
> although the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.
> 
> Was that deliberate?  I feel that it makes the current draft not
> appropriate for widespread use: as discussed in this subthread there
> is ambiguity on the exact wording of each BSD variant.

Hi Jonas,

I am hoping that given SPDX is advancing towards beta release, they will
fill these pages in a not too long time. But in the meantime, we could
add a link to their license table, if necessary:

diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn
index 09da1e1..1b217de 100644
--- a/dep5.mdwn
+++ b/dep5.mdwn
@@ -383,6 +383,9 @@ of that license, the short name is finished with a plus 
sign.
 For SPDX compatibility, trailing "dot-zeroes" are considered to be equal
 to plainer version (e.g., "2.0.0" is considered equal to "2.0" and "2").
 
+Currently, the full text of the licenses is only available in the
+[working version the SPDX license 
list](http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list).
+
 
 [[!table data="""
 **keyword** | **meaning**


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/20110117230027.gc3...@merveille.plessy.net

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-17 Thread Charles Plessy 
> > Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> > > 
> > > I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
> > > could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
> > > ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but otherwise
> > > I'm fine with anything.

Hi Lars,

in the meantime, SPDX has started to evoke on their mailing lists DEP-5 and the
short names we use in /usr/share/common-licenses:

https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2011-January/68.html

https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/2011-January/000283.html
https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/2011-January/000292.html

Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
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/20110117225319.gb3...@merveille.plessy.net

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard 

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:53:55AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I just realised that the SPDX site is not yet ready as their license 
links point to empty pages: http://spdx.org/licenses/


I attached three patches. The first removes the FreeBSD license, the 
second adds missing links to upstream pages, and the last points all 
the links to SPDX instead. I think that we should wait before applying 
the third and use the second in the meantime.


It seems to me that the third patch has been applied by now, although 
the referenced SPDX web pages for BSD licenses are empty.


Was that deliberate?  I feel that it makes the current draft not 
appropriate for widespread use: as discussed in this subthread there is 
ambiguity on the exact wording of each BSD variant.



 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-15 Thread Lars Wirzenius 
Applied all three patches, thanks.

On to, 2011-01-13 at 09:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> > 
> > I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
> > could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
> > ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but otherwise
> > I'm fine with anything.
> > 
> > Charles, would you be willing to provide a patch to link to SPDX and fix
> > the FreeBSD shortname issue? I seem to have shown myself to be a bit
> > careless with this license thing, and I make sloppy edits (this is
> > probably because I find this part to be the least interesting one, and
> > one that I've dreaded for months).
> 
> I just realised that the SPDX site is not yet ready as their license links
> point to empty pages: http://spdx.org/licenses/
> 
> I attached three patches. The first removes the FreeBSD license, the second
> adds missing links to upstream pages, and the last points all the links to 
> SPDX
> instead. I think that we should wait before applying the third and use the
> second in the meantime.
> 
> In addition I noticed a minor mismatch between the SPDX license list page and
> the SPDX license spreadsheet: in the first the Apache license is ‘ASL’, and in
> the second it is ‘Apache’. The third patch may therefore need some adjustment,
> depending on how SPDX resolves this.
> 
> Have a nice day,
> 

-- 
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/1295095823.3740.27.ca...@havelock.lan

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-12 Thread Charles Plessy 
Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> 
> I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
> could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
> ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but otherwise
> I'm fine with anything.
> 
> Charles, would you be willing to provide a patch to link to SPDX and fix
> the FreeBSD shortname issue? I seem to have shown myself to be a bit
> careless with this license thing, and I make sloppy edits (this is
> probably because I find this part to be the least interesting one, and
> one that I've dreaded for months).

I just realised that the SPDX site is not yet ready as their license links
point to empty pages: http://spdx.org/licenses/

I attached three patches. The first removes the FreeBSD license, the second
adds missing links to upstream pages, and the last points all the links to SPDX
instead. I think that we should wait before applying the third and use the
second in the meantime.

In addition I noticed a minor mismatch between the SPDX license list page and
the SPDX license spreadsheet: in the first the Apache license is ‘ASL’, and in
the second it is ‘Apache’. The third patch may therefore need some adjustment,
depending on how SPDX resolves this.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
>From 6150c9326af07608917643949cf19f2d45a994ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Charles Plessy 
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:38:05 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Removed FreeBSD license, identical to BSD-2-clause in SPDX.

---
 dep5.mdwn |1 -
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn
index 2006864..5c65cc9 100644
--- a/dep5.mdwn
+++ b/dep5.mdwn
@@ -388,7 +388,6 @@ to plainer version (e.g., "2.0.0" is considered equal to "2.0" and "2").
 `BSD-2-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, 2-clause version
 `BSD-3-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, 3-clause version
 `BSD-4-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, 4-clause version
-`FreeBSD` | FreeBSD Project license
 `ISC` | [Internet Software Consortium](http://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt)'s license, sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License
 `CC-BY` | Creative Commons Attribution license
 `CC-BY-SA` | Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license
-- 
1.7.2.3

>From 43a94c2c81bcf1053f405084b3e42b17f2e37ab2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Charles Plessy 
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:39:06 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Added missing links to licences.

---
 dep5.mdwn |   40 
 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn
index 5c65cc9..e3f0f2f 100644
--- a/dep5.mdwn
+++ b/dep5.mdwn
@@ -385,31 +385,31 @@ to plainer version (e.g., "2.0.0" is considered equal to "2.0" and "2").
 **keyword** | **meaning**
 `Apache` | Apache license. For versions, consult the [Apache Software Foundation](http://www.apache.org/licenses/).
 `Artistic` | Artistic license. For versions, consult the [Perl Foundation](http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal)
-`BSD-2-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, 2-clause version
-`BSD-3-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, 3-clause version
-`BSD-4-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, 4-clause version
+`BSD-2-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, [2-clause version](http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html)
+`BSD-3-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, [3-clause version](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php)
+`BSD-4-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, [4-clause version](http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html)
 `ISC` | [Internet Software Consortium](http://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt)'s license, sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License
-`CC-BY` | Creative Commons Attribution license
-`CC-BY-SA` | Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license
-`CC-BY-ND` | Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives
-`CC-BY-NC` | Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial
-`CC-BY-NC-SA` | Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
-`CC-BY-NC-ND` | Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives
-`CC0` | Creative Commons Universal waiver
-`CDDL` | Common Development and Distribution License. For versions, consult [Sun Microsystems](http://www.sun.com/cddl/).
-`CPL` | IBM Common Public License. For versions, consult the [IBM Common Public License (CPL) Frequently asked questions](http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html).
+`CC-BY`| Creative Commons [Attribution](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) license
+`CC-BY-SA` | Creative Commons [Attribution Share Alike](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) license
+`CC-BY-ND` | Creative Commons [Attribution No Derivatives](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/) license
+`CC-BY-NC` | Creative Commons [Attribution Non-Commercial](

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-12 Thread Lars Wirzenius 
On ma, 2011-01-10 at 19:24 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The current version of the DEP specifies that the differences with the SPDX
> format will be tracked. My understanding of this, and the discussions we had
> before, is that we will use the same short names than SPDX unless specified
> otherwise. The SPDX list includes a full copy of the license, and a beta
> program is starting, with the aim of releasing a spec within three months.
> 
> http://spdx.org/wiki/beta-program-doc-and-email-blurb
> 
> I think that if they acheive their schedule, SPDX 1.0 will be out before DEP5
> is declared ACCEPTED. Then we could simply refer to SPDX 1.0 and its license
> list, which is comprehensive. Also, if we have additions or changes to 
> suggest,
> it is perhaps not too late.
> 
> Also, it is not too late to ask the Linux Foundation that the SPDX
> specification will be redistributable by Debian. Its license is Creative
> Commons Attribution 3.0, and according to the Debian wiki it may be acceptable
> in our archive. But we will need the source PDF. Also, some license texts
> themselves are not modifiable, but since we already make an exception for the
> GPL, we may make one for them as well ?
> 
> For the current list in the DEP's revision 154, I think that Lars forgot to
> remove the FreeBSD license when he added the BSD-2-clause, which is how SPDX
> calls it. I can also add links to the licenses in the DEP, following the patch
> that I sent earlier 
> (http://lists.debian.org/20100814075847.ge5...@merveille.plessy.net).

I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec, or point at the
ones on the OSI site. I'd rather avoid attaching things, but otherwise
I'm fine with anything.

Charles, would you be willing to provide a patch to link to SPDX and fix
the FreeBSD shortname issue? I seem to have shown myself to be a bit
careless with this license thing, and I make sloppy edits (this is
probably because I find this part to be the least interesting one, and
one that I've dreaded for months).

-- 
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/1294859349.6791.63.ca...@havelock.lan

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-10 Thread Charles Plessy 
Le Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:00:47AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:58:48AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this,
> > but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external
> > reference for the license definitions for these short names.
> 
> This is a very good point: beside debates on which short name should
> correspond to which license, we need to provide a reliable (and
> DEP5-authoritative) key-value mapping from short names to full text
> licenses.

The current version of the DEP specifies that the differences with the SPDX
format will be tracked. My understanding of this, and the discussions we had
before, is that we will use the same short names than SPDX unless specified
otherwise. The SPDX list includes a full copy of the license, and a beta
program is starting, with the aim of releasing a spec within three months.

http://spdx.org/wiki/beta-program-doc-and-email-blurb

I think that if they acheive their schedule, SPDX 1.0 will be out before DEP5
is declared ACCEPTED. Then we could simply refer to SPDX 1.0 and its license
list, which is comprehensive. Also, if we have additions or changes to suggest,
it is perhaps not too late.

Also, it is not too late to ask the Linux Foundation that the SPDX
specification will be redistributable by Debian. Its license is Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0, and according to the Debian wiki it may be acceptable
in our archive. But we will need the source PDF. Also, some license texts
themselves are not modifiable, but since we already make an exception for the
GPL, we may make one for them as well ?

For the current list in the DEP's revision 154, I think that Lars forgot to
remove the FreeBSD license when he added the BSD-2-clause, which is how SPDX
calls it. I can also add links to the licenses in the DEP, following the patch
that I sent earlier 
(http://lists.debian.org/20100814075847.ge5...@merveille.plessy.net).

Have a nice day,

-- 
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/20110110102437.ga21...@merveille.plessy.net

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-10 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli 
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:58:48AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this,
> but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external
> reference for the license definitions for these short names.

This is a very good point: beside debates on which short name should
correspond to which license, we need to provide a reliable (and
DEP5-authoritative) key-value mapping from short names to full text
licenses.

I see various possible ways of achieving that. One is to store under
dep.d.n/deps/dep5/ a list (either as full text documents or as a mapping
short name -> URL); unfortunately, either way, we would add a new
license list to be maintained, I'm skeptical it won't get out of date
any time soon.

Alternatively, we might use DEP5 mappings as key to index
/usr/share/common-licenses/, which does seem to be the most natural
place. After all, we include licenses in that dir as they are widespread
licenses we don't want to duplicate in copyright files; that seems to be
the very same rationale for assigning short names in DEP5.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2011-01-09 Thread Steve Langasek 
Hi Lars,

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:49:02PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> All of the below is now done, I've today done the final bits by
> splitting BSD into BSD-[234]-clause and renaming some licenses to match
> the names in SPDX.

Reading over the present contents of http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/, I
find the license descriptions to be quite ambiguous.  The reason for
avoiding the names "2-clause BSD" and "3-clause BSD" in general is that it
does not specify *which* clauses have been dropped from the original BSD
licenses, and at various times, various parties have chosen to drop
*different* of the original four clauses.

Indeed, if you compare with ,
you'll find that the most common "2-clause" reduction of the BSD license is
the one used by FreeBSD; but the FreeBSD license is listed as a separate
line item in the list of license short names.  And the code that is actually
copyright UC Berkeley has only ever been relicensed under a 3-clause
license, not under a 2-clause license.

I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this,
but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external
reference for the license definitions for these short names.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?

2010-12-30 Thread Lars Wirzenius 
All of the below is now done, I've today done the final bits by
splitting BSD into BSD-[234]-clause and renaming some licenses to match
the names in SPDX.

As far as I know, these were the final changes that were needed. Does
anyone object if I change the status of DEP5 to CANDIDATE, and push the
version in bzr to svn at the same time? If nobody objects, I will do
that in the early days of January, and announce this on
debian-devel-announce.

After that, the final steps for the spec should be the following:

* integrate the spec with the debian-policy package
* as part of that, set up a stable URL

Of course, if any bugs in the spec are found, they can and should still
be fixed. I hope that no large changes will turn out to be necessary.

On ma, 2010-12-20 at 21:43 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> A summary of differences found by Charles and others, if I have
> understood correctly, with comments.
> 
> * SPDX sometimes adds a license version, when we don't, or
>   adds a ".0" to license version
>   => ignore? the difference should not matter much
>   => maybe suggest to SPDX they drop the ".0"
> * SPDX does not have some licenses we do (Artistic v1,
>   CC0, Expat, Perl, GFDL without invariants)
>   => ignore: it's OK for us to have names for more licenses
>   => but remove Perl as a shortname in DEP5
> * SPDX has BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses with placeholders
>   => ignore: we'll just have many variants of BSD (called
>  other-FOO or whatever)
> * BSD license versions
>   => adopt SPDX naming: BSD-2-clause (from FreeBSD),
>  BSD-3-clause, BSD-4-clause (do dashes clash with
>  license version syntax?)
> * SPDX represents "or later" as a different license,
>   where we have a generic syntax, but end result is same
>   => ignore
> * SPDX treats each GPL exception as a separate license
>   => ignore, and suggest to SPDX they adopt DEP5 approach
> * LGPL+ means in SPDX that no version was specified, but no such
>   convention for the GPL
>   => ignore, it's their problem, our syntax supports it anyway
> * SPDX calls it FDL, DEP5 calls it GFDL
>   => ask SPDX to rename, since GFDL is the logical name,
>  otherwise maintain a mapping table
> * SPDX calls it Python and Python-CNRI, DEP5 calls it PSF
>   => rename in DEP5
> * SPDX calls them EFL, W3C, Zlib
>   => rename in DEP5
> * SPDX links to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
>   => add link to DEP5
> * I've fixed DEP5 to use the right versions for the Perl example
>   (thanks, gregoa)
> 
> Any comments on this? Did I miss anything, or misunderstand something?
> Are all above suggestions acceptable? If so, I'll make the changes and
> push things to svn.
> 
> -- 
> Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
> http://www.branchable.com/
> 
> 

-- 
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/1293749342.13186.19.ca...@havelock.lan