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

Re: DEP5: License section

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* SPDX has BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses with placeholders
 => ignore: we'll just have many variants of BSD (called
    other-FOO or whatever)

Related to this, there are few oddities regarding "other" licenses:

In Files section the License field is required but allowed to be completely empty (as long as a later License section named "other" is included). I suggest simplifying to always require an explicit license shortname (i.e. drop the implicit "other" name).

The License shortname list includes an "other" name describes as being "any other custom license". Nowhere is it explicitly described that other-FOO or FOO is allowed in addition to the officially listed shortnames. I suggest to replace that final "other" shortname in the list with a short text decribing explicitly that a) any custom names is permitted, b) it is encouraged to use a custom name that might be suitable for later adoption in the official list, and c) it is encouraged to use a leading "other-" for exotic licenses unsuitable for adoption in the list.

NB! These comments are based on the latest published rev. 135 draft. If fixed in later drafts, I apologize for the noise.

* SPDX links to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
 => add link to DEP5

Draft rev. 135 lists only Expat, but mentions MIT license as being ambiguous. Is the ambifuity solved in newer revisions? Is Expat preserved or replaced by MIT license?

Other than these, I agree with the suggestions (and have no clueful suggestions for your questions raised).


 - 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: