On 25/12/12 12:34, Ximin Luo wrote: > On 24/12/12 10:31, Charles Plessy wrote: >> Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:53:21PM +0000, Ximin Luo a écrit : >>> https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/compare/bug649350-infinity0 >>> >>> I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added >>> extra explanations in the commit messages. >>> >>> I'm trying to follow the principle that the commit messages should >>> already contain enough justification for the changes, but if any of them >>> are unclear, please do ask me for further detail. >>> >>> (Further potential additions, which I've omitted for simplicity, include >>> License-Exception: fields, and Location: fields to formalise the concept >>> of a "pointer" to a License.) >> >> Dear Ximin, >> >> It was nice to split the patch and document the chunks, but I am still >> not convinced that the changes you propose are useful. >> >> In particular, I do not see the benefit from using a syntax for the license >> short names, especially that SPDX and other projects do not have one (for >> instance GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are seen as separate short names). Also, creating >> a >> syntax is a complex project that I think is beyond the scope of our >> machine-readable format. There are corner cases, for instance BSD-3-Clause >> is >> not the upgrade from BSD-2-Clause, or MPL-1.1 can be upgraded to MPL-2.0 >> despite its short name is not MPL-1.1+, etc. If you would like to work on a >> robust syntax, I propose you do it as an independant specification that can >> later be proposed for adoption not ony to use, but also to SPDX, OSI, >> ADMS.F/OSS, etc. >>
This feels very much like delay tactics, and makes me feel very frustrated as someone who is trying to contribute to Debian. You imply that the syntax I propose is not robust, but I have answered all the claimed flaws you bring up. My suggestions come from an abstract model of the basic types of information contained in software license (who/author, what/software, terms), and this will fit any license for any package. If you can find a real flaw, you should be able to describe how my model breaks down for that example. Additionally, for SPDX, the debian copyright format already states "the two formats have different aims, and so the formats are different", so your suggestion seems strange to me, if I assume you are treating me seriously. > > - "GPL-2 and GPL-2+ are seen as separate short names [by SPDX]" - this does > not mean my suggestion is a bad idea, nor that my syntax is inconsistent. > > - "BSD-3-Clause is not the upgrade from BSD-2-Clause" - there is no > contradiction with what I suggest here. > > - "MPL-1.1 can be upgraded to MPL-2.0 despite its short name is not MPL-1.1+" > - this is incorrect and due to people *misusing the term MPL-1.1", which my > changes *will help communicate and correct*. If you look at MPL-1.1[1] you > will notice it makes *no mention* of "or later version". The vast majority of > MPL-1.1 uses should actually be "MPL-1.1+", consistent with my proposed > changes. > > [1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/index.txt > >> Another change that you propose and that I disagree with is to "forbid >> author- >> and software-specific information" in stand-alone paragaphs. A lot of >> derivatives from the BSD licenses contain such information. Despite we link >> to >> a SPDX page where the BSD license terms are generic, I do not think that the >> intent in Debian's machine-readable format to is consider them all the same. >> At least in my copyright files I only use "BSD-3-Clause" if the copyright >> owners are the regents of the university of California. >> > > This is because people misunderstand what a License is; my changes will help > communicate and correct this mistake. > > Different BSD-3-Clause licenses have the *same terms*; that is what makes > them BSD-3-Clause. However, as commonly written, people add author- and > software-specific information to their statement of the license. We cannot do > this in debian/copyright because that would be logically inconsistent, since: > > If a package contains files under different BSD-3-Clause licenses, each with > different owners, but the terms are the same, (according to my changes) the > owners would be stripped out and put in the relevant Files: paragraphs, and > the common terms would be put in *one* stand-alone License: paragraph. > Currently, it is impossible to merge these; you would have to give the > licenses each different names. > > Example: > > | Files: X > | Copyright: A > | License: BSD-3-Clause > | Copyright 2012 A > | terms etc > | > | Files: Y > | Copyright: B > | License: BSD-3-Clause > | Copyright 2012 B > | terms etc > > This is obviously absurd. My changes would instead force this: > > | Files: X > | Copyright: A > | License: BSD-3-Clause > | > | Files: Y > | Copyright: B > | License: BSD-3-Clause > | > | License: BSD-3-Clause > | terms etc > >> Cheers, >> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
