On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:01:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft; Lars: can you confirm that the diff produced by Charles still applies?
Do we even have any newer draft publicly available? ...i.e. accessible not only by VCS but also web browsable.
... the question of how to call the "FreeBSD" license stays. It seems that while FSF is calling it "FreeBSD license", "BSD 2 clauses" is more widespread; that is unsurprisingly, as it's easy to classify BSD licenses according to the number of clauses. In that respect, SPDX naming looks saner. Also, I duly note that it cannot be simplified further down to BSD-2/BSD-3, as that will clash with license versioning syntax.Bottom line: I propose to adopt SPDX naming for BSD licenses.
+1
- 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.In fact, DEP5 choice can be seen as introducing new license names as well, except that they include spaces and provide a clear convention, e.g. "GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception".
Which reveals a related issue: DEP5 currently (or at least r135 of it) lists only non-space shortnames for licenses but do not require a shortname to not include spaces.
Do we want that clarified? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature