Re: DEP5: ready for CANDIDATE?
Le Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:00:47AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:58:48AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this,
> > but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external
> > reference for the license definitions for these short names.
> This is a very good point: beside debates on which short name should
> correspond to which license, we need to provide a reliable (and
> DEP5-authoritative) key-value mapping from short names to full text
The current version of the DEP specifies that the differences with the SPDX
format will be tracked. My understanding of this, and the discussions we had
before, is that we will use the same short names than SPDX unless specified
otherwise. The SPDX list includes a full copy of the license, and a beta
program is starting, with the aim of releasing a spec within three months.
I think that if they acheive their schedule, SPDX 1.0 will be out before DEP5
is declared ACCEPTED. Then we could simply refer to SPDX 1.0 and its license
list, which is comprehensive. Also, if we have additions or changes to suggest,
it is perhaps not too late.
Also, it is not too late to ask the Linux Foundation that the SPDX
specification will be redistributable by Debian. Its license is Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0, and according to the Debian wiki it may be acceptable
in our archive. But we will need the source PDF. Also, some license texts
themselves are not modifiable, but since we already make an exception for the
GPL, we may make one for them as well ?
For the current list in the DEP's revision 154, I think that Lars forgot to
remove the FreeBSD license when he added the BSD-2-clause, which is how SPDX
calls it. I can also add links to the licenses in the DEP, following the patch
that I sent earlier (http://lists.debian.org/20100814075847.GE5219@merveille.plessy.net).
Have a nice day,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan