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
earlier):
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
http://bzr.debian.org/scm/loggerhead/dep/dep5/trunk/annotate/head:/dep5.mdwn
to see the current revision in bzr. (Not sure why this is so hard to
find.)
> >* 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):
http://www.branchable.com/
Reply to: