[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Copyright format “License” field: grant of license, license text?



Niko Tyni <ntyni@debian.org> writes:

> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:46:44PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>  
>>     Files: libquux/*
>>     Copyright: […]
>>     License: GPL-2 or CC-BY-SA-3
>>         You may modify and/or redistribute this work under the terms of
>>         either the GPL version 2 or later, or the Creative Commons
>>         Attribution Share-Alike license version 3.
>> 
>>     License: CC-BY-SA-3
>>         THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
>>         CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK
>>         IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW.
>>         […]
>> 
>> That makes sense to me: we have the grant of license where it applies to
>> the specific files, and we have the license text itself in a stand-alone
>> paragraph.
>
> FWIW, this is what I use for the perl package (which has one of the longer
> copyright files), but it always felt a bit like stretching the rules.
> I've seen the newish lintian warnings too but haven't gotten around to
> doing anything about them yet.
>
> The style reads well for humans but I can see it's not ideal for
> machine parsing.
>
> I'd love to have a "right" place for verbatim license grants.

I've run into this issue in my packages as well.  I have always
interpreted (and used) the 'License:' header to mean the license grant
text together with the license text, rather than only the license text.
That may just have been a misunderstanding.

I believe the license grant is just as important as the license text.
The license text itself does not mean anything related to a package
unless there is a grant relating the project source code to a particular
license.  This text can look the same, but for GPL it isn't: the license
grant typically refer to a particular GPL version but also includes text
such as "or (at your option) any later version".  That grant text is
critical to determining the actual license of a package.  Code under
GPLv2 and GPLv2+ have different properties.

I prefer to clarify that 'License:' is intended to hold the license
grant text together with the license text itself (or a pointer for the
common license texts).

Alternatively, a 'Grant:' keyword?

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: