Le Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:54:06PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : > > * The list of license short names looks fine to me. I have not compared > the DEP5 list with SPDX or Fedora, or other projects, though. If someone > notices incompatibilities, we should fix that.
Dear Lars and everybody, I have compared the DEP5 and SPDX license short names: For SPDX: http://spdx.org/system/files/spdx_licenselist_v1.3.ods (http://spdx.org/wiki/license-list) For DEP5: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 Here are comments or differences between the license names: - In both specifications, for versionned licenses the version number is added after a minus sign. In SPDX, a decimal number is sometimes added even when the license text does not (at least for EFL-2.0). - The Artistic license version 1 is absent from SPDX. - SPDX contains a BSD-3-Clauses and a BSD-3-Clauses license, where some parts (year, copyright, organization) are substituted with placeholders. This can not work with DEP5, because of its standalone license sections. - DEP5’s FreeBSD is SPDX’s BSD-2-Clauses. In that case, there are no generic placeholders. - SPDX does not contain the CC0, Expat, nor Perl licenses. - ‘or any later version’ is represented in SPDX as a different license, with a short name ending by a plus, like ‘GPL-3.0+’. - In SPDX, each exception to the GPL is considered a separate license. For instance: GPL-2.0-bison. There is no short GPL name combining an exception with the ‘or any later version’ statement. - LGPL+ means in SPDX that no version was specified. There is no such convention for the GPL. - The GNU Free Documentation License is called GFDL in DEP5 and FDL in SPDX. SPDX does not provide a name for the ‘no invariants’ exception. - The licence of Python was subjected to extensive research in the SPDX working group (https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/). The table contains the Python and Python-CNRI short names (PSF in DEP5). - Other discrepancies between DEP5 and SPDX: Eiffel / EFL-2.0, W3C-software / W3C and ZLIB / Zlib. - SPDX's MIT license is from: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html. > * The wiki suggests that "the meaning of "public domain" as a license > may need clarification". I am not sure what that means. I think that it is related to the debate whether public domain should be stated in the License or Copyright field (which in my understanding, is closed). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
