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. >> > > - "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 >
I've written my reasons for this patch, and its tangible benefits that you dismiss, in a bit more depth here: https://github.com/infinity0/debian-policy/wiki It turns out I was wrong about the MPL-1.1 not explicitly allowing re-licensing, but this is a minor issue. To that document, I've added a proposal that deals with this. After seeing the SPDX license list[1] in more detail, I can understand a bit better why you are reluctant to accept my patch. I guess you see the "short names" list in the copyright-format as a minor tweak of SPDX. However I don't think my changes deviate from this in any significant way; and the "and/or" syntax of copyright-format is on a similar level to the changes I propose here. [1] http://spdx.org/licenses/ >> 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. > I believe the fact that SPDX itself replaces WHAT/WHO information with variable placeholders (e.g. [2]) lends more weight to my position, too. [2] http://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause > 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
