On 22/11/11 00:06, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ximin Luo wrote: >> On 21/11/11 23:21, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >>> Files: * >>> Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc >>> License: GPL-2+ >>> >>> License: GPL-2 >>> etc > [...] >>> Files: * >>> Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc >>> License: GPL-2 with Font exception >>> >>> License: GPL-2 >>> etc > [...] >> Correct, and that's the symptom that I first came across, but I think all of >> the symptoms that I described in the latter half of my last email, are part of >> the same design problem. > > Right. My small brain copes better with only one primary use case at a > time, though. > > In the examples above, a natural approach might be to make the > standalone license paragraphs more modular somehow. For example: > > Files: * > Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc > License: GPL-2+ > > License: GPL-2 > etc > > License: GPL-3 > etc > > The "or later" licenses are particularly problematic because it is not > clear which version the reader is going to choose, and so it is not > clear which set of license terms is actually relevant. The best way > to deal with "or later" terms is not obvious to me. > Typically, people don't bundle copies of GPL3 when the license is GPL2+, and I don't see why we should feel like we need to for debian/copyright. This is a side issue from this topic anyway, and it applies to every piece of software that uses this sort of license. Usually people just bundle the lowest version. > License exceptions are easier. > > Files: * > Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc > License: GPL-2 with Font exception > > License: GPL-2 > etc > > License-Exception: Font > etc > > I would be glad to see a change to allow such a syntax (modulo > wording), especially if targeted at copyright-format 1.1. > I was going to suggest the Exception stanza as well, but I thought it would be too much for one email. I support it though :) > Another problem involves licenses that require preserving the list of > copyright holders. Is the list of copyright holders part of the > license? > > Copyright (c) The Regents of the University of California. > All rights reserved. > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > [...] > > Common practice in debian/copyright files I have seen is to say, "no", > so the "License: BSD-3-clause" paragraph begins with "Redistribution > and use" and the copyright notice it mentions is in the Copyright: > line of each Files stanza. > I think it makes sense if you see License stanzas as being a way to re-use common bits of full-text. The only sane way you can implement this re-use, is if the thing being re-used is neutral to the (many possible) things that reference it. In this case, License full-texts should be neutral to WHO and WHAT information, which should be in the File stanza. > That sounds fine, but it does not work as well for programs licensed > under the MPL, which involves some notices other than the list of > copyright holders. > > * The Original Code is mozilla.org code. > * > * The Initial Developer of the Original Code is > * Netscape Communications Corporation. > * Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) 1998 > * the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved. > * > * Contributor(s): > * Original Author: David W. Hyatt (hyatt@netscape.com) > * Gagan Saksena <gagan@netscape.com> > * Benjamin Smedberg <benjamin@smedbergs.us> > > I believe something like the following would be ok, according to the > current copyright-format. > > Files: * > Copyright: 1998 Netscape Communications Corporation > Comment: > The Original Code is mozilla.org code. > . > The Initial Developer of the Original Code is > Netscape Communications Corporation. > Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) 1998 > the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved. > . > Contributor(s): > Original Author: David W. Hyatt (hyatt@netscape.com) > Gagan Saksena <gagan@netscape.com> > Benjamin Smedberg <benjamin@smedbergs.us> > License: MPL-1.1 or GPL-2+ or LGPL-2.1+ > > License: MPL-1.1 > 1. Definitions. > etc > > License: GPL-2+ > etc > > License: LGPL-2.1+ > etc > > The "Comment" could even be dropped, as far as I can tell. A person > interested in the list of Contributors can look at the source, and the > license does not seem to require reproducing this list when > distributing binaries. Some people prefer to keep this information (at this level of verbosity too) in debian/copyright, and apparently this is also required by the ftp masters. I do think it's beneficial to provide a central place for this information, although one could argue that the Copyright: and License: fields already provide the same thing but in a shorter format. One other thing is that I would push, is to require (or at least encourage) License stanzas to specify the main name of the license (GPL2 rather than GPL2+). The main reason is consistency and re-use. Also in many cases there is no commonly-accepted "full-text" for the extended version - it might differ from author to author. The main license almost always has a proper published version that stays constant everywhere. Thanks for doing these examples, they are pretty much exactly what I was talking about. I was trying to keep my post short but I might have sacrificed some clarity, this makes things more explicit. :) X -- GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0 https://bitbucket.org/infinity0 https://launchpad.net/~infinity0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature