Thanks Bradley and David, These are good points, which I have rolled into a Github issue for us to address here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618
Best, Brad -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Wheeler, David A <dwhee...@ida.org> wrote: > Bradley M. Kuhn: > > I therefore suggest two changes to the SPDX License List: > > > > * Change existing Full Names to: > > "Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International" > > for the 4.0 version and, > > "Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike <VERSION> Unported" > > for the older ones. > > > > It seems that would be an uncontroversial change -- it just involves > > adding "International" and "Unported" into the Full Name field. Does > > anyone have an argument why that *shouldn't* be done? > > I agree. > > > * It *would* surely be controversial to add *every* version of *every* > > jurisdiction-specific CC license in the SPDX license list. Instead > of > > suggesting that, for the moment I suggest that "-Unported" should be > > added to identifier for the pre-4.0 ones (i.e., "CC-BY-SA-3.0" > becomes > > "CC-BY-SA-3.0-Unported") so that no is confused by this situation. > > I disagree, for several reasons. > * Version numbers are normally at the end. > * In practice, I think in almost all cases what is intended is the > *unported*/*international* version, since these materials normally go out > around the world. SPDX license names are long enough; the "short" version > should be the "normal" version. > * This creates yet-another transition problem, and in this case I think an > unnecessary one. Many people already use CC-BY-SA-3.0 to mean the unported > one, so let's just clarify that. > > I actually do *NOT* think it'd be very controversial to add all the > jurisdiction-specific CC licenses that are actually used: > * There's an easy stopping requirement: You have to show that something > was actually *distributed* under that license. Almost all of the possible > license + countries combinations have never been used. > * There are SPDX license identifiers for licenses used by relatively few > programs. > * You could create a convention, e.g., <CC NAME>-PORTED-< ISO 3166-1 > alpha-2 country code>-<VERSION_NUMBER>. The SPDX license identifier list > could even standardize that as a convention, instead of listing them all > out. A few lines of text... and you're done. E.g., the US ported version > would be "CC-BY-SA-PORTED-US-3.0". I add the "-PORTED-" because "SA" means > "Saudi Arabia"; without some special keyword it wouldn't be obvious what > "CC-BY-SA" meant. I suggest the 2-character code, that's what most people > use. We could use the "2-character codes as assigned by the Internet > Assigned Numbers Authority". The alpha-2 code for the UK is "GB", but "UK" > is used in domain names & it might be clearer to use that. > > --- David A. Wheeler > > _______________________________________________ > Spdx-legal mailing list > Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org > https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal >
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
