On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +0000, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: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.
It solves a) but not b) or c).I got the impression that our earlier discussion on avoiding leading "X-" for additional fields led to an explicit discouragement, but apparently not (reading the text in the Bazaar repository now). Makes sense then to not do it explicit here either - although I would have preferred that.
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.
Sure, it is http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=135 ...which seems to be a verbatim copy of http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 ...which is the canonical URL for the topic of this discussion.
Go to http://bzr.debian.org/scm/loggerhead/dep/dep5/trunk/annotate/head:/dep5.mdwnto see the current revision in bzr. (Not sure why this is so hard to find.)
Thanks. I saw your other post with this link right after my last post.Reason it is hard to find, I believe, is that it is missing from both official DEP5 http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ page and front http://dep.debian.net/ pages.
>* 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?
I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the "Short name" section, but _is_ listed in the "Problematic Licenses" section.
So your proposal to "add link to DEP5" is, I believe, tied to removing it from "Problematic Licenses", and this we should discuss.
As I just wrote, I have no opinion myself (except that I don't want changes to happen silently), so if you feel it is wrong for the MIT license to be listed as problematic as is the case now, then I won't argue against that.
Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature