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

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:


For DEP5:

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,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: