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

DEP-5: prior art for license short names

Hi all,

One concern I have with the current DEP5 draft is that the set of keywords
for common licenses is very NIH.  Fedora, for example, has an existing list
of license keywords that are widely deployed, as can be found here:


I think we should consider adopting this existing set of license keywords as
part of the DEP, and diverging from it only when necessary in order to
resolve ambiguities or reduce complexity (e.g., using a single rule about
version numbers instead of spelling these all out).  I see a few advantages
to this approach:

 - we benefit from previous efforts of the Fedora community to identify
   commonly used licenses and disambiguate them
 - it becomes more practical for third parties to collate license
   information from multiple sources if there's a common vocabulary
 - it should enable upstreams to autogenerate license information for both
   distributions from a common source, reducing duplication

(And I don't think existing deployments of the draft spec in debian/copyright
files is a reason to avoid exploring this option, since there are any number
of other proposed changes on the table that would also invalidate existing

Since this will shake up the list of license keywords substantially from
where it is in the draft today, I recommend having this discussion
immediately and setting aside for the moment other threads proposing fixes
to individual license keywords; depending on the outcome here those
proposals may cease to be relevant or need to be adapted significantly.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: