Re: DEP5: License section

[Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi>]

A summary of differences found by Charles and others, if I have
understood correctly, with comments.

* SPDX sometimes adds a license version, when we don't, or
  adds a ".0" to license version
  => ignore? the difference should not matter much
  => maybe suggest to SPDX they drop the ".0"
* SPDX does not have some licenses we do (Artistic v1,
  CC0, Expat, Perl, GFDL without invariants)
  => ignore: it's OK for us to have names for more licenses
  => but remove Perl as a shortname in DEP5
* SPDX has BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses with placeholders
  => ignore: we'll just have many variants of BSD (called
     other-FOO or whatever)
* BSD license versions
  => adopt SPDX naming: BSD-2-clause (from FreeBSD),
     BSD-3-clause, BSD-4-clause (do dashes clash with
     license version syntax?)
* SPDX represents "or later" as a different license,
  where we have a generic syntax, but end result is same
  => ignore
* SPDX treats each GPL exception as a separate license
  => ignore, and suggest to SPDX they adopt DEP5 approach
* LGPL+ means in SPDX that no version was specified, but no such
  convention for the GPL
  => ignore, it's their problem, our syntax supports it anyway
* SPDX calls it FDL, DEP5 calls it GFDL
  => ask SPDX to rename, since GFDL is the logical name,
     otherwise maintain a mapping table
* SPDX calls it Python and Python-CNRI, DEP5 calls it PSF
  => rename in DEP5
* SPDX calls them EFL, W3C, Zlib
  => rename in DEP5
* SPDX links to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
  => add link to DEP5
* I've fixed DEP5 to use the right versions for the Perl example
  (thanks, gregoa)

Any comments on this? Did I miss anything, or misunderstand something?
Are all above suggestions acceptable? If so, I'll make the changes and
push things to svn.

-- 
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/