Re: DEP5: License section
Le Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:54:06PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> * The list of license short names looks fine to me. I have not compared
> the DEP5 list with SPDX or Fedora, or other projects, though. If someone
> notices incompatibilities, we should fix that.
Dear Lars and everybody,
I have compared the DEP5 and SPDX license short names:
Here are comments or differences between the license names:
- In both specifications, for versionned licenses the version number is added
after a minus sign. In SPDX, a decimal number is sometimes added even when
the license text does not (at least for EFL-2.0).
- The Artistic license version 1 is absent from SPDX.
- SPDX contains a BSD-3-Clauses and a BSD-3-Clauses license, where some parts
(year, copyright, organization) are substituted with placeholders. This can
not work with DEP5, because of its standalone license sections.
- DEP5’s FreeBSD is SPDX’s BSD-2-Clauses. In that case, there are no generic
- SPDX does not contain the CC0, Expat, nor Perl licenses.
- ‘or any later version’ is represented in SPDX as a different license, with a
short name ending by a plus, like ‘GPL-3.0+’.
- In SPDX, each exception to the GPL is considered a separate license. For
instance: GPL-2.0-bison. There is no short GPL name combining an exception
with the ‘or any later version’ statement.
- LGPL+ means in SPDX that no version was specified. There is no such
convention for the GPL.
- The GNU Free Documentation License is called GFDL in DEP5 and FDL in SPDX.
SPDX does not provide a name for the ‘no invariants’ exception.
- The licence of Python was subjected to extensive research in the SPDX
working group (https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/). The table contains
the Python and Python-CNRI short names (PSF in DEP5).
- Other discrepancies between DEP5 and SPDX: Eiffel / EFL-2.0,
W3C-software / W3C and ZLIB / Zlib.
- SPDX's MIT license is from: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html.
> * The wiki suggests that "the meaning of "public domain" as a license
> may need clarification". I am not sure what that means.
I think that it is related to the debate whether public domain should be stated
in the License or Copyright field (which in my understanding, is closed).
Have a nice day,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan