Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification
On 25/12/12 12:34, Ximin Luo wrote:
> On 24/12/12 10:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:53:21PM +0000, Ximin Luo a écrit :
>>> https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0
>>>
>>> I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
>>> extra explanations in the commit messages.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to follow the principle that the commit messages should
>>> already contain enough justification for the changes, but if any of them
>>> are unclear, please do ask me for further detail.
>>>
>>> (Further potential additions, which I've omitted for simplicity, include
>>> License-Exception: fields, and Location: fields to formalise the concept
>>> of a "pointer" to a License.)
>>
>> Dear Ximin,
>>
>> It was nice to split the patch and document the chunks, but I am still
>> not convinced that the changes you propose are useful.
>>
>> In particular, I do not see the benefit from using a syntax for the license
>> short names, especially that SPDX and other projects do not have one (for
>> instance GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are seen as separate short names). Also, creating a
>> syntax is a complex project that I think is beyond the scope of our
>> machine-readable format. There are corner cases, for instance BSD-3-Clause is
>> not the upgrade from BSD-2-Clause, or MPL-1.1 can be upgraded to MPL-2.0
>> despite its short name is not MPL-1.1+, etc. If you would like to work on a
>> robust syntax, I propose you do it as an independant specification that can
>> later be proposed for adoption not ony to use, but also to SPDX, OSI,
>> ADMS.F/OSS, etc.
>>
>
> - "GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are seen as separate short names [by SPDX]" - this does not mean my suggestion is a bad idea, nor that my syntax is inconsistent.
>
> - "BSD-3-Clause is not the upgrade from BSD-2-Clause" - there is no contradiction with what I suggest here.
>
> - "MPL-1.1 can be upgraded to MPL-2.0 despite its short name is not MPL-1.1+" - this is incorrect and due to people *misusing the term MPL-1.1", which my changes *will help communicate and correct*. If you look at MPL-1.1[1] you will notice it makes *no mention* of "or later version". The vast majority of MPL-1.1 uses should actually be "MPL-1.1+", consistent with my proposed changes.
>
> [1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/index.txt
>
I've written my reasons for this patch, and its tangible benefits that you dismiss, in a bit more depth here: https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/wiki
It turns out I was wrong about the MPL-1.1 not explicitly allowing re-licensing, but this is a minor issue. To that document, I've added a proposal that deals with this.
After seeing the SPDX license list[1] in more detail, I can understand a bit better why you are reluctant to accept my patch. I guess you see the "short names" list in the copyright-format as a minor tweak of SPDX. However I don't think my changes deviate from this in any significant way; and the "and/or" syntax of copyright-format is on a similar level to the changes I propose here.
[1] http://spdx.org/licenses/
>> Another change that you propose and that I disagree with is to "forbid author-
>> and software-specific information" in stand-alone paragaphs. A lot of
>> derivatives from the BSD licenses contain such information. Despite we link to
>> a SPDX page where the BSD license terms are generic, I do not think that the
>> intent in Debian's machine-readable format to is consider them all the same.
>> At least in my copyright files I only use "BSD-3-Clause" if the copyright
>> owners are the regents of the university of California.
>>
>
> This is because people misunderstand what a License is; my changes will help communicate and correct this mistake.
>
> Different BSD-3-Clause licenses have the *same terms*; that is what makes them BSD-3-Clause. However, as commonly written, people add author- and software-specific information to their statement of the license. We cannot do this in debian/copyright because that would be logically inconsistent, since:
>
> If a package contains files under different BSD-3-Clause licenses, each with different owners, but the terms are the same, (according to my changes) the owners would be stripped out and put in the relevant Files: paragraphs, and the common terms would be put in *one* stand-alone License: paragraph. Currently, it is impossible to merge these; you would have to give the licenses each different names.
>
I believe the fact that SPDX itself replaces WHAT/WHO information with variable placeholders (e.g. [2]) lends more weight to my position, too.
[2] http://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> Example:
>
> | Files: X
> | Copyright: A
> | License: BSD-3-Clause
> | Copyright 2012 A
> | terms etc
> |
> | Files: Y
> | Copyright: B
> | License: BSD-3-Clause
> | Copyright 2012 B
> | terms etc
>
> This is obviously absurd. My changes would instead force this:
>
> | Files: X
> | Copyright: A
> | License: BSD-3-Clause
> |
> | Files: Y
> | Copyright: B
> | License: BSD-3-Clause
> |
> | License: BSD-3-Clause
> | terms etc
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>
Reply to: