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

Re: DEP5: License section

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 01:19:38AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:01:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>    some parts (year, copyright, organization) are substituted with
>    placeholders. This can not work with DEP5, because of its
>    standalone license sections.

If I understand correctly, that simply means that SPDX offers a more compact representation of something that in DEP-5 will be more verbose, is that it? If yes, it's not a big deal and can be changed later on, without affecting backward compatibility.

In DEP-5, if there are two files with their license derived from the BSD license by changing the year, copryight and organisation name, we need to use a different short name for each, otherwise there is the possibility to infringe or at least mess with one of the licenses, by displaying the wrong organisation name in the non-endorsement clause. I do not know how SPDX solves the problem. But I note that they are inconsistent with the BSD-2-Clauses, that has no placeholders, so they may probably change one or the other at some point.

Somewhat related: Do the following violate Debian Policy (because is it not "verbatim")?:

License: other-GAP
 This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
 unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
 modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
 This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
 WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law; without even the
 Some files may differ from above by replacing "this file" with more
 specific term.

Above is a _very_ common pattern - e.g. Makefile.in files commonly contains the alternate string "This Makefile.in is free software".

Strictly speaking this is not a DEP5 question but one suitable for debian-legal, but I dare sneak it in here anyway, as I believe it touches same kind of issue as the SPDX one raised above.

>  - SPDX's MIT license is from:
>    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html.

I don't get this difference, can you please expand?

DEP-5 notes that several variants of the MIT license exist. I simply indicated which is the one chosen by SPDX.

It would also be helpful to include both Expat and MIT licenses (if not the cases already), since copyright-check currently describes Expat licenses as "MIT-like" (or some similar wording).

 - 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

Reply to: