Hello,
What I really want help with is someone to a) proofread the text that
I change from html to text, and b) to provide feedback / direction on
matters like whether it would be okay to create separate nodes with
different names for version x and version x or later licenses on
opensource.org [1].
If someone wanted to c) liaise with SPDX on an RDF format or something
for how the licenses could be made available to their tools, that
would be cool and great for the open source world but not necessary
for my purposes.
I'm available to help with points a), b) and c). I'm a PHP developer, no
experience on Drupal but can help with a prototype on d).
My work involves extensive usage of SPDX during licensing compliance
activities and this requires creating consistent definitions on our
tooling that you find at our site [T1] for describing the licensing
situations not yet prescribed by the SPDX working groups.
Would be glad to help.
With kind regards
Nuno Brito
[T1] http://www.triplecheck.de/download/
---
email: nuno.br...@triplecheck.de
phone: +49 615 146 03187
twitter: @triplechecked
On 2013-12-19 16:57, Joe Murray wrote:
Thanks, Simon.
What I really want help with is someone to a) proofread the text that
I change from html to text, and b) to provide feedback / direction on
matters like whether it would be okay to create separate nodes with
different names for version x and version x or later licenses on
opensource.org [1].
If someone wanted to c) liaise with SPDX on an RDF format or something
for how the licenses could be made available to their tools, that
would be cool and great for the open source world but not necessary
for my purposes.
If someone with Drupal experience d) wanted to help with the design
and implementation that would be a bonus, but I'm ready to shoulder
that.
Joe Murray, PhD
President, JMA Consulting
joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz
skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray
416.466.1281
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
wrote:
This sounds useful and I'd support the idea if a group were willing
to make it happen. I suggest a staged implementation with the
"Popular Licenses" being made available first and the others set up
to return a placeholder message or error.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Joe Murray
<joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz> wrote:
Would it be possible for OSI to make available a machine readable
list of the licenses approved by OSI? The format - a csv, xml or
some other file in a repository, or a REST or some other service
from opensource.org [1] - is not as important as that the content
be authoritative. There may be an official specification for how
software licenses should be made available, but I am not aware of
it. http://spdx.org/licenses/ [2] provides a list of licenses but
it too is not designed for automated use (though it might be
scrapable). Ideally, it seems like the recognition of licenses by
OSI should produce some output that could be used by SPDX tools,
but this request is a bit simpler.
Background:
CiviCRM would like the set of licenses in this form in order to
ensure that any extensions that we list on civicrm.org [3] and
provide auto-download services for via civicrm.org [3] are using
licenses approved by OSI. However, the request seems of broader
interest. Karl Fogel suggested I pose it to these two lists.
CiviCRM decided to try to up its game with respect to licensing of
its extensions partly as a result of someone coming
across
http://www.zdnet.com/github-improves-open-source-licensing-polices-7000018213/
[4]. While early on most civicrm.org [3] listed extensions were
hosted on drupal.org [5] and thus were guaranteed to have a GPL
license, now most of our new listings are for software on github.
CiviCRM would also like to 'assist' extension developers in
actually including an accurate license text file in their
extension by checking it is present in the extension's root
directory and that its text matches what they are listing as the
license. I've been asked to liaise with OSI on the availability of
such a machine readable list of these licenses.
Possible implementation strategy:
If OSI decides it would like to do this, it may be technically as
simple as copying the licenses on opensource.org [1] from one type
of node to another, then doing a bit of cleanup to support some
requirements for automated use. Looking at opensource.org [6], I
see a content type was at some point created specifically for
licenses, though no content has been posted of that type, and all
the licenses are currently created as nodes with content
type=page.
In terms of fields for automated use, it would be useful to move
the short title into its own field rather than having it in
parentheses at the end of the long title, and to make a plain text
version of licenses suitable for inclusion as a LICENSE.txt file
in source code available in addition to the current html formatted
ones. If the approved licenses on opensource.org [1] were put
into suitable content types, they could easily be made available
as a feed or exported periodically to a file that could be stored
in an authoritative repository.
I am also trying to understand the proper way to handle headers in
license files, particularly for the small number of cases where
they make a difference, eg GPL-3.0 versus GPL-3.0+
(see http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#howto [7], and
the differences between the 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New
Programs' sections of http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0 [8]
and http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0+ [9]). This seems like
something we want to assist developers in getting right by using
reasonable defaults. One possibility we are mulling over is
optionally automating the creation of a LICENSE.txt file using
metadata about the Author, publication date, and license and
suggesting that authors use that file in their repo or request a
manual review of their LICENSE.txt. It would be convenient if
suggested header text for licenses was made available in machine
readable form from OSI, including for the differences between
'version x only' and 'version x or later' headers.
I am willing to volunteer with doing some of the implementation
work if a decision is made to provide this new service.
Joe Murray, PhD
President, JMA Consulting
joe.mur...@jmaconsulting.biz
skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray
416.466.1281 [10]
_______________________________________________
Infrastructure mailing list
infrastruct...@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
[11]
--
SIMON PHIPPS http://webmink.com [12]
_MESHED INSIGHTS LTD _
_Office:_ +1 (415) 683-7660 [13] _or_ +44 (238) 098 7027 [14]
_Mobile_: +44 774 776 2816 [15]
Links:
------
[1] http://opensource.org
[2] http://spdx.org/licenses/
[3] http://civicrm.org/
[4]
http://www.zdnet.com/github-improves-open-source-licensing-polices-7000018213/
[5] http://drupal.org/
[6] http://opensource.org/
[7] http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#howto
[8] http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0
[9] http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0+
[10] tel:416.466.1281
[11]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
[12] http://webmink.com/
[13] tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20683-7660
[14] tel:%2B44%20%28238%29%20098%207027
[15] tel:%2B44%20774%20776%202816
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
