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

Re: DEP5: License section

On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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).

Agreed. Done.

> 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.

The License field description includes this (after the above
modification; the wording at the beginning was slightly different

        If there are licenses present in the package without a standard
        short name, an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these
        licenses.  These arbitrary names are only guaranteed to be
        unique within a single copyright file.

Should be clear enough.

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

That would be revision 135 in svn, not bzr, I assume.

Go to 


to see the current revision in bzr. (Not sure why this is so hard to

> >* 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?

I don't actually see the ambiguity. Do you have a specific change to
suggest? How would you word it?

Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):

Reply to: