Re: DEP5: License section
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 02:04:43PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: 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. Sure, it is http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=135 ...which seems to be a verbatim copy of http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 ...which is the canonical URL for the topic of this discussion. 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.) Thanks. I saw your other post with this link right after my last post. Reason it is hard to find, I believe, is that it is missing from both official DEP5 http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ page and front http://dep.debian.net/ pages. I now realized (from its [howto] page) that the dep.debian.net is editable by all Debian Developers, and I have updated DEP5 references to point to the Bazaar VCS. The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated too - but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale. @Lars: You may want to check if rendered layout is really as intended. It seems to me that some newlines should be preserved - which means the Markdown files should contain trailing double-space before the newline. If anyone - like me - wants to browse changes since last subversion commit (rev. 135), here's what worked for me: aptitude install git-svn git svn clone -r 135:HEAD svn://svn.debian.org/svn/dep/web cd web git diff --color-words `git svn find-rev r135`..HEAD deps/dep5.mdwn Kind regards, - Jonas [howto]: http://dep.debian.net/depdn-howto/ -- * 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: License section
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 15:29 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated too - but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale. Actually, I was quite happy with the way things were. The draft of DEP5 in svn was and is the version people should use, if they want to use DEP5 now. The version in bzr is the one I edit based on discussions, until it's stable enough to start suggesting people use. This way, there is little fear from changing the working draft, since nothing bad will happen. I would like this to continue. I appreciate the desire to help, but please revert your change. -- 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/1293030144.23963.84.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 02:23 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the Short name section, but _is_ listed in the Problematic Licenses section. So your proposal to add link to DEP5 is, I believe, tied to removing it from Problematic Licenses, and this we should discuss. No, I don't suggest that at all. I suggest keeping it where it is and adding a link to it. I don't care what happens to it, so nothing else will happen unless and until someone proposes concrete changes. I suggest to remove the whole section about problematic licenses: - If we indicate a reference form for the MIT license, then it has its place in the short name table. - Description of the Copyright field already specifies that it is where public domain should be mentionned. - The part about PHP explains that the reason why it is not in the list of short names; but I do not thing why we should make a justification for PHP in particular. I think I agree with Charles, and we should remove the section. Nobody seems to have objected to it. I agree with Ben that MIT is an ambiguous name, and Expat is better, when it is the one people mean. I'll add a note about this. -- 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/1293030752.23963.98.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 03:02:24PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ke, 2010-12-22 at 15:29 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated too - but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale. Actually, I was quite happy with the way things were. The draft of DEP5 in svn was and is the version people should use, if they want to use DEP5 now. The version in bzr is the one I edit based on discussions, until it's stable enough to start suggesting people use. This way, there is little fear from changing the working draft, since nothing bad will happen. I would like this to continue. I appreciate the desire to help, but please revert your change. Sorry - I thought the Bazaar repository represented the most recent draft of DEP5 - not just some semi-secret draft of a draft. I respect your great work here, Lars, but disagree with your style. If you want my changes reverted, go ahead and do that yourself. I have no desire to waste more time there. - 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: License section
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 16:50 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I respect your great work here, Lars, but disagree with your style. If you disagree with my reasons for doing edits in bzr and not pushing changes to svn all the time, you can argue those. You even have an excellent chance of convincing me that way. -- 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/1293034630.23963.116.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:15 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: Or for one page that links to both: http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal Thanks, picked that one. -- 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/1292926578.23963.0.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, 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
Re: DEP5: License section
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 09:25 +1100, Craig Small wrote: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * 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 I'd suggest that to SPDX but if they don't change just put in something that Foo-1.2 implies Foo-1.2.0 or even Foo-1.2.0.0 Sure, that sounds reasonable. The rest of it I agree, the only thing is that any differences should be documented somewhere so when someone comes along to this standard they don't have to trawl debian-project email archives to work out why we have GFDL and SPDX has FDL (for example). A reference somewhere stating the differences would be enough, perhaps not in DEP5 itself, but somewhere, such as the wiki. Good point. I added the list I currently have to the wiki[0] and modified the DEP5 draft to include that link. [0] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat -- 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/1292927535.23963.9.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
Le Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 08:42:14PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : * yes, we (the DEP5 drivers) have communicated with Kate Stewart and the SPDX people, though not very much yet; I don't have time to follow SPDX, perhaps someone else would be interested in that task? Hi Lars, I have been watching the mailing lists for a while, but the real work is coordinated through teleconferences and perhaps via private exchanges as well… I was planning to unsubscribe soon, but I can keep an eye. Just let me know if you think it would help. For more serious interactions, it looks to me that the participant profile is mostly people who contribute as part of their payed work in the IT industry, so I doubt that I would fit there. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Ilkirch, France -- 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/2010122110.ga18...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: DEP5: License section
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: 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. It solves a) but not b) or c). I got the impression that our earlier discussion on avoiding leading X- for additional fields led to an explicit discouragement, but apparently not (reading the text in the Bazaar repository now). Makes sense then to not do it explicit here either - although I would have preferred that. 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. Sure, it is http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=135 ...which seems to be a verbatim copy of http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 ...which is the canonical URL for the topic of this discussion. 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.) Thanks. I saw your other post with this link right after my last post. Reason it is hard to find, I believe, is that it is missing from both official DEP5 http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ page and front http://dep.debian.net/ pages. * 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? I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the Short name section, but _is_ listed in the Problematic Licenses section. So your proposal to add link to DEP5 is, I believe, tied to removing it from Problematic Licenses, and this we should discuss. As I just wrote, I have no opinion myself (except that I don't want changes to happen silently), so if you feel it is wrong for the MIT license to be listed as problematic as is the case now, then I won't argue against that. Regards, - 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: License section
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: 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. It solves a) but not b) or c). I don't think it is appropriate for us to make DEP5 users make value judgements on what licenses are or are not suitable for inclusion into the official list of shortnames. I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the Short name section, but _is_ listed in the Problematic Licenses section. So your proposal to add link to DEP5 is, I believe, tied to removing it from Problematic Licenses, and this we should discuss. No, I don't suggest that at all. I suggest keeping it where it is and adding a link to it. I don't care what happens to it, so nothing else will happen unless and until someone proposes concrete changes. -- 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/1292950496.23963.18.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the Short name section, but _is_ listed in the Problematic Licenses section. So your proposal to add link to DEP5 is, I believe, tied to removing it from Problematic Licenses, and this we should discuss. No, I don't suggest that at all. I suggest keeping it where it is and adding a link to it. I don't care what happens to it, so nothing else will happen unless and until someone proposes concrete changes. I suggest to remove the whole section about problematic licenses: - If we indicate a reference form for the MIT license, then it has its place in the short name table. - Description of the Copyright field already specifies that it is where public domain should be mentionned. - The part about PHP explains that the reason why it is not in the list of short names; but I do not thing why we should make a justification for PHP in particular. 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/20101221172351.gb15...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: DEP5: License section
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes: On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: 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. As I understand it, the ambiguity is not in the license terms, but in the name “MIT license”. MIT have released software under numerous licenses, each different, some of them non-free; none of them have distinct canonical names AFAIK. So there's no clear referent of that simple name. So on that basis, a newer version of the license terms could not solve the problem. The license terms for the Expat library are considered functionally equivalent to the terms people often intend by the name “MIT license”, so the name “Expat license” is often promoted as more precise when referring to those terms. URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#Various_versions Do you have a specific change to suggest? How would you word it? I would suggest simply using the name “Expat license” (short name “Expat”) in all cases to refer to those license terms, and a cross-reference to help those seeking “MIT”. -- \ “If [a technology company] has confidence in their future | `\ ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting | _o__) their past innovations really should decline.” —Gary Barnett | Ben Finney -- 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/87fwtqvo1h@benfinney.id.au
Re: DEP5: License section
I'll respond to several mails in this one. * patch from Zack to fix broken example applied, thanks * added SPDX section, since nobody objected to it; with gregoa's fix * yes, we (the DEP5 drivers) have communicated with Kate Stewart and the SPDX people, though not very much yet; I don't have time to follow SPDX, perhaps someone else would be interested in that task? * I'll push the current version from bzr to the dep.debian.net svn soon * the current version in bzr is at http://bzr.debian.org/scm/loggerhead/dep/dep5/trunk/annotate/head:/dep5.mdwn (which link is on http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat, too), except when loggerhead on alioth is broken (in which case you should report it to alioth admins if you notice it) I'll reply directly to Charles's e-mail about differences between DEP5 and SPDX. -- 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/1292877734.4384.23.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On to, 2010-12-16 at 17:04 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:30:08PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft; Lars: can you confirm that the diff produced by Charles still applies? Do we even have any newer draft publicly available? ...i.e. accessible not only by VCS but also web browsable. AFAIK, no, but I understand that Lars is going to publish that ASAP (after consensus would probably better match his stance :)). In fact, DEP5 choice can be seen as introducing new license names as well, except that they include spaces and provide a clear convention, e.g. GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception. Which reveals a related issue: DEP5 currently (or at least r135 of it) lists only non-space shortnames for licenses but do not require a shortname to not include spaces. Do we want that clarified? Nice catch. Given that we are relaying on some sort of word tokenization for things like exceptions, I'd say that we certainly want to. I've changed: ## Syntax -License names are case-insensitive. +License names are case-insensitive, and may not contain spaces. -- 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/1292879559.4384.27.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On to, 2010-12-16 at 14:08 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: * The link in For versions, consult the Perl Foundation doesn't lead to the expected page. Can you give a good link? -- 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/1292881127.4384.55.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
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/ -- 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/1292881433.4384.61.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * 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 I'd suggest that to SPDX but if they don't change just put in something that Foo-1.2 implies Foo-1.2.0 or even Foo-1.2.0.0 The rest of it I agree, the only thing is that any differences should be documented somewhere so when someone comes along to this standard they don't have to trawl debian-project email archives to work out why we have GFDL and SPDX has FDL (for example). A reference somewhere stating the differences would be enough, perhaps not in DEP5 itself, but somewhere, such as the wiki. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZhttp://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 -- 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/20101220222546.gb17...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP5: License section
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:38:47 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On to, 2010-12-16 at 14:08 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: * The link in For versions, consult the Perl Foundation doesn't lead to the expected page. Can you give a good link? For the Artistic License: http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html Or, if we want the Perl Foundation and/or both Artistic and Artistic 2.0: http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_1_0 http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0 Or for one page that links to both: http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal For the (not existing) Perl License: http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ which links to http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html and http://dev.perl.org/licenses/gpl1.html Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: Bettina Wegner: Fleißig reichlich glücklich signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: License section
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, 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). 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. NB! These comments are based on the latest published rev. 135 draft. If fixed in later drafts, I apologize for the noise. * 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? Other than these, I agree with the suggestions (and have no clueful suggestions for your questions raised). Regards, - 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: License section
Le Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:54:06PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : * The list of license short names looks fine to me. I have not compared the DEP5 list with SPDX or Fedora, or other projects, though. If someone notices incompatibilities, we should fix that. Dear Lars and everybody, I have compared the DEP5 and SPDX license short names: For SPDX: http://spdx.org/system/files/spdx_licenselist_v1.3.ods (http://spdx.org/wiki/license-list) For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 Here are comments or differences between the license names: - In both specifications, for versionned licenses the version number is added after a minus sign. In SPDX, a decimal number is sometimes added even when the license text does not (at least for EFL-2.0). - The Artistic license version 1 is absent from SPDX. - SPDX contains a BSD-3-Clauses and a BSD-3-Clauses license, where some parts (year, copyright, organization) are substituted with placeholders. This can not work with DEP5, because of its standalone license sections. - DEP5’s FreeBSD is SPDX’s BSD-2-Clauses. In that case, there are no generic placeholders. - SPDX does not contain the CC0, Expat, nor Perl licenses. - ‘or any later version’ is represented in SPDX as a different license, with a short name ending by a plus, like ‘GPL-3.0+’. - In SPDX, each exception to the GPL is considered a separate license. For instance: GPL-2.0-bison. There is no short GPL name combining an exception with the ‘or any later version’ statement. - LGPL+ means in SPDX that no version was specified. There is no such convention for the GPL. - The GNU Free Documentation License is called GFDL in DEP5 and FDL in SPDX. SPDX does not provide a name for the ‘no invariants’ exception. - The licence of Python was subjected to extensive research in the SPDX working group (https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/). The table contains the Python and Python-CNRI short names (PSF in DEP5). - Other discrepancies between DEP5 and SPDX: Eiffel / EFL-2.0, W3C-software / W3C and ZLIB / Zlib. - SPDX's MIT license is from: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html. * The wiki suggests that the meaning of public domain as a license may need clarification. I am not sure what that means. I think that it is related to the debate whether public domain should be stated in the License or Copyright field (which in my understanding, is closed). 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/20101216123621.ga18...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: DEP5: License section
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:36:21 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 - SPDX does not contain the CC0, Expat, nor Perl licenses. I thought the Perl license was removed already? TTBOMK there is no such thing as a Perl license, the usual under the same terms as Perl itself clause translates to Artistic or GPL-1+. Which leads me to 3 other observations on the mentioned URL: * This is a dual-licensed GPL/Artistic work such as Perl: License: GPL-2+ or Artistic-2.0 looks wrong, perl is TTBOMK licensed under Artistic (=1) or GPL 1 or later * Perl Perl license (equates to “GPL-1+ or Artistic-1 besides the missing closing parenthesis: I vaguely remember that the Artistic license (usually without the 1 suffix [0]) was referred to as 'Artistic' without any version. * The link in For versions, consult the Perl Foundation doesn't lead to the expected page. [0] Cf. e.g. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-Live long and prosper. -- Spock, Amok Time, stardate 3372.7 -- 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/20101216130812.ge4...@colleen.colgarra.priv.at
Re: DEP5: License section
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:54:06PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
The remaining parts of DEP5 are all related to licenses. I propose the
following:
* Add a mention of and link to SPDX to the License specifications
chapter.
ACK.
Have you in the end contacted Kate Stewart (coordinating SPDX
activities), with whom I put you in touch a while ago? If not, it's
probably the right moment to do that, once the current draft is online.
* I don't think we need to do much extra work for SPDX compatibility at
this time. I'd like to get DEP5 pushed out, and not wait for conversion
tools or verification that such tools can be written. We can fix things
later, if need be.
ACK. Also, we do not really need an implementation to move DEP-5 to
candidate and have people starting to actually use it. This applies to
DEP-5 itself, as well as to conversion tools to/from other formats.
* The list of license short names looks fine to me. I have not
compared the DEP5 list with SPDX or Fedora, or other projects,
though. If someone notices incompatibilities, we should fix that.
Charles has now done that (thanks!). I'll comment on the list of
differences he has found in a separate mail. As a goal, I don't think
full license name compatibility should be a blocker, but we should try
to avoid having in our basic set of license names, names that have a
different meaning in SPDX. That would be unfortunate and difficult to
fix later on.
Once there's rough consensus of this part of DEP5, I'll push out the
changes we've made over the past months to the DEP svn repository, and
after that we should start moving it info the debian-policy package,
assuming [1] still applies. (After that, any further changes to the
debian/control format should happen via debian-policy package
maintainers.)
At this point in time, I believe it's urgent to publish the latest draft
we have or, at the very least, update the VCS pointer which is included
in the latest draft which is published on the web. I've the impression
quite some people don't know where to find the current text. FWIW, it is
on bzr at http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep5/trunk/.
(Note: I do understand your goal of avoiding proliferation of different
versions of the text, but at this point in time the benefit of having
the current draft widely available IMHO overtake the risks.)
Thanks a lot for your amazing work on DEP-5,
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: License section
[ quoted text reordered, for factorization purposes ]
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I have compared the DEP5 and SPDX license short names:
Thanks a lot for this effort!
For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft; Lars: can you confirm
that the diff produced by Charles still applies?
- In both specifications, for versionned licenses the version number
is added after a minus sign. In SPDX, a decimal number is sometimes
added even when the license text does not (at least for EFL-2.0).
We could either ignore the difference [1] or propose SPDX to adopt DEP-5
convention, which seems saner (why should they add a .0 if the license
lacks it? and if they want to, why only .0 and not .0.0? it seems
rather arbitrary...).
[1] assuming conversion tools will be able to normalize version
numbering---while that is hard in general, for license versioning
it's probably a sound assumption
- The Artistic license version 1 is absent from SPDX.
I agree with Lars that sets differences (i.e. License FOO is in DEP-5
but not in SPDX or vice-versa) are not particularly worrisome at this
point.
I propose to ignore this difference.
- SPDX contains a BSD-3-Clauses and a BSD-3-Clauses license, where
^
one of these two is a typo, I take?
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.
If it is the case, I propose to ignore this difference.
Still ...
- DEP5’s FreeBSD is SPDX’s BSD-2-Clauses. In that case, there are no
generic placeholders.
snip
- SPDX does not contain the CC0, Expat, nor Perl licenses.
... the question of how to call the FreeBSD license stays. It seems
that while FSF is calling it FreeBSD license, BSD 2 clauses is more
widespread; that is unsurprisingly, as it's easy to classify BSD
licenses according to the number of clauses. In that respect, SPDX
naming looks saner. Also, I duly note that it cannot be simplified
further down to BSD-2/BSD-3, as that will clash with license versioning
syntax.
Bottom line: I propose to adopt SPDX naming for BSD licenses.
- ‘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?
- In SPDX, each exception to the GPL is considered a separate
license. For instance: GPL-2.0-bison. There is no short GPL name
combining an exception with the ‘or any later version’ statement.
In fact, DEP5 choice can be seen as introducing new license names as
well, except that they include spaces and provide a clear convention,
e.g. GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception.
That is strictly more expressive than introducing a new license name, as
it permits not only to give a name to the license, but also to
distinguish the base license from the exception applied to it. That
might enable useful analysis as well as the formation of a vocabulary of
exceptions.
I propose to stick to our choice and propose it to SPDX for adoption.
- LGPL+ means in SPDX that no version was specified. There is no such
convention for the GPL.
... and hence is bad, as ad-hoc is bad :-)
I propose to ignore this one.
- The GNU Free Documentation License is called GFDL in DEP5 and FDL
in SPDX. SPDX does not provide a name for the ‘no invariants’
exception.
Sounds like a good case where supporting two different names as synonyms
might be good, i.e. FDL and GFDL will mean the same thing. They seem
to be both quite widespread. How about that?
- The licence of Python was subjected to extensive research in the SPDX
working group (https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/). The table contains
the Python and Python-CNRI short names (PSF in DEP5).
Looks like we can adopt SPDX names out of the box, on this.
- Other discrepancies between DEP5 and SPDX: Eiffel / EFL-2.0,
W3C-software / W3C and ZLIB / Zlib.
Ditto, although I object the -2.0 when it should really be 2.
- SPDX's MIT license is from:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html.
I don't get this difference, can you please expand?
Hope this helps,
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: License section
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:01:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: 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; Lars: can you confirm that the diff produced by Charles still applies? Do we even have any newer draft publicly available? ...i.e. accessible not only by VCS but also web browsable. ... the question of how to call the FreeBSD license stays. It seems that while FSF is calling it FreeBSD license, BSD 2 clauses is more widespread; that is unsurprisingly, as it's easy to classify BSD licenses according to the number of clauses. In that respect, SPDX naming looks saner. Also, I duly note that it cannot be simplified further down to BSD-2/BSD-3, as that will clash with license versioning syntax. Bottom line: I propose to adopt SPDX naming for BSD licenses. +1 - In SPDX, each exception to the GPL is considered a separate license. For instance: GPL-2.0-bison. There is no short GPL name combining an exception with the ‘or any later version’ statement. In fact, DEP5 choice can be seen as introducing new license names as well, except that they include spaces and provide a clear convention, e.g. GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception. Which reveals a related issue: DEP5 currently (or at least r135 of it) lists only non-space shortnames for licenses but do not require a shortname to not include spaces. Do we want that clarified? - 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: License section
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:30:08PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft; Lars: can you
confirm that the diff produced by Charles still applies?
Do we even have any newer draft publicly available?
...i.e. accessible not only by VCS but also web browsable.
AFAIK, no, but I understand that Lars is going to publish that ASAP
(after consensus would probably better match his stance :)).
In fact, DEP5 choice can be seen as introducing new license names
as well, except that they include spaces and provide a clear
convention, e.g. GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception.
Which reveals a related issue: DEP5 currently (or at least r135 of
it) lists only non-space shortnames for licenses but do not require
a shortname to not include spaces.
Do we want that clarified?
Nice catch. Given that we are relaying on some sort of word
tokenization for things like exceptions, I'd say that we certainly want
to.
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: License section
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
Re: DEP5: License section
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 01:19:38AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: 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: 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. Somewhat related: Do the following violate Debian Policy (because is it not verbatim)?: License: other-GAP This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved. . This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Comment: Some files may differ from above by replacing this file with more specific term. Above is a _very_ common pattern - e.g. Makefile.in files commonly contains the alternate string This Makefile.in is free software. Strictly speaking this is not a DEP5 question but one suitable for debian-legal, but I dare sneak it in here anyway, as I believe it touches same kind of issue as the SPDX one raised above. - 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. It would also be helpful to include both Expat and MIT licenses (if not the cases already), since copyright-check currently describes Expat licenses as MIT-like (or some similar wording). - 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: License section
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:54:06 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Add a mention of and link to SPDX to the License specifications chapter. ## SPDX [SPDX](http://spdx.org/) is an attempt to standardize a format for communicating the components, licenses and copyrights associated with a software package. It and the machine-readable debian/control format attempt to be somewhat compatible. However, the two formats have different aims, and so the formats are different. s~debian/control~debian/copyright~ /me agrees to (or can't answer) the other points of your mail. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: Bettina Wegner: Die Beiden signature.asc Description: Digital signature
