I would think that the word "name[s]" should not be replaceable - anything reasonably viewed as a variant of these licenses will have the word "name[s]" in the relevant clauses. (But maybe there's some variant I'm not thinking of.)
Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "J Lovejoy" <opensou...@jilayne.com> To: "Philippe Ombredanne" <pombreda...@nexb.com> Cc: "Richard Fontana" <rfont...@redhat.com>, "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 8:10:34 PM Subject: Re: Error in SPDX version of Apache-1.0 (was: Re: Error in SPDX version of Apache-1.1) Philippe, Richard, So, now I’m confused… Going back to Richard’s original email, to remind myself what I think I was supposed to fix here, Richard had noticed the following: For Apache-1.0, we have clause 4 as: 4. The "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact apa...@apache.org But, if you go to http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.0 - clause 4 states: * 4. The names "Apache Server" and "Apache Group" must not be used to * endorse or promote products derived from this software without * prior written permission. For written permission, please contact * apa...@apache.org. (and I’m quite sure if you look in a bunch of other places, you will find other variations…) Now, as per the matching guidelines, the bit in red is “replaceable’ meaning that these two licenses would be a match. Likewise, for Apache-1.1, we have clause 4 as: 4. The "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact apa...@apache.org Whereas, http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1 <http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1> has: * 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must * not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this * software without prior written permission. For written * permission, please contact apa...@apache.org. In which case, we have lost a period at the end, as Richard pointed out. And the word “names” is also missing - I believe the word “names” would simply be added to the red/replaceable text here. I believe Richard’s point here is that we ought to at least match up with the ASF’s original text as the starting point, even if it doesn’t make a difference for matching purposes. And I’d agree. (Richard - correct me if I’m wrong there) So, I was going to make these updates. But then Philippe asked: > On Mar 29, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:28 PM, J Lovejoy <opensou...@jilayne.com> wrote: >> Thanks Richard. We will update this for the next release. >> >> Also note, this text is considered "replaceable" for purposes of license >> matching as per license matching guideline 2.1.3 and as indicated by the red >> text on the website. > > Jilayne: > What about tracking and keeping the original text too? > Having only one text that is systematically marked up is not a great > solution IMHO. > For instance it makes the reuse of the text as-is impossible or > difficult in an attribution > notice and makes automation there more difficult. > This kind of usage is important and orthogonal to matching guidelines. I think you answered your own question when you said it’s orthogonal to the matching guidelines. If you want to save the text that is different (and allowed to be different as per the matching guidelines / markup) then you are free to write a tool to do so. > > And editing for markup is conducive to small mistakes like the one > Richard found. > This is likely to be more frequent if you are adding XML markup on top. Really, how so? How is editing for ark up conducive for small mistakes like the ones that Richard found? The “mistakes” Richard found may have been there from day one and no one caught them. And how is the XML markup likely to make small mistakes more frequent? I don’t believe I have seen you contributing to the review of the XML conversion project, so that seems like a judgement without familiarity, perhaps? Having been the almost sole maintainer of the SPDX License List (and hence, the main contributor of any mistakes!) I am quite sure that the combination of a new format for maintaining the data that comprises the SPDX License List that retains every change made in source control plus the format of using Github and the ease with which others can see, point out issues or areas where we can improve/expand the implementation of the matching guidelines as only making the SPDX License List all the more rich. And far less prone to mistakes (more eyes, shallow bugs, and all that). but perhaps, I’ve missed the point here? Thanks, Jilayne > So keeping the original unmodified text would be a good thing. > -- > Cordially > Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
