Re: [spdx-tech] OSI vs. FSF
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 01:38:49AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> "Artistic-1.0": {
> "osi": {
> "id": "Artistic-1.0",
> "tags": [
> "osi-approved",
> "discouraged",
> "obsolete"
> ]
> },
> "fsf": {
> "id": "ArtisticLicense",
> "tags": [
> "non-free"
> ]
> }
> },
> …
> "NASA-1.3": {
> "osi": {
> "id": "NASA-1.3",
> "tags": [
> "osi-approved",
> "special-purpose"
> ]
> },
> "fsf": {
> "id": "NASA",
> "tags": [
> "non-free"
> ]
> }
> },
> …
> "Watcom-1.0": {
> "osi": {
> "id": "Watcom-1.0",
> "tags": [
> "discouraged",
> "non-reusable",
> "osi-approved"
> ]
> },
> "fsf": {
> "id": "Watcom",
> "tags": [
> "non-free"
> ]
> }
> },
These are currently the only open/non-free disagreements. The other
entries in my previous post were all “known to one list, but not known
to either SPDX or the other list”. FSF notes on these three are in
[1,2,3].
Presumably there are also licenses that the OSI has considered but
rejected. However, the OSI API [4] does not currently record
rejections (i.e. all of the licenses in the OSI API [5] have the
‘osi-approved’ keyword). I've filed [6] in case the OSI API
maintainers want to address that.
Cheers,
Trevor
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NASA
[3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom
[4]: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses
[5]: https://api.opensource.org/licenses/
[6]: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses/issues/58
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Spdx-tech mailing list
Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
[spdx-tech] OSI vs. FSF (was: Providing access to FSF license metadata)
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:56:55PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > I've been thinking about this because there's been some interest > among the FSF and OSI in seeing where exactly the lists of > FSF-recognized-as-free and OSI-approved licenses disagree. This is definitely something that would be nice to answer automatically. It would be nice if the FSF had an API, but we can scrape out a list of their free IDs using JavaScript [1]. And we can use the OSI API to pull their list of approved licenses [2]. Comparing the two lists: $ diff -yW 40 <(jq -r '.[] | ascii_downcase' fsf.json | sort) <(jq -r '.[] | ascii_downcase' osi.json) academicfreelice |aal acdl |afl-3.0 agpl |agpl-3.0 agplv1.0 |apl-1.0 agplv3.0 |apsl-2.0 apache1|apache-1.1 apache1.1 |apache-2.0 apache2|artistic-1.0 apsl2 |artistic-2.0 arphic |bsd-2 artisticlicense2 |bsd-3 berkeleydb |bsl-1.0 berkleydb |catosl-1.1 bittorrent |cddl-1.0 boost |cecill-2.1 cc0|cnri-python ccby |cpal-1.0 ccbysa |cpl-1.0 cddl |cua-opl-1.0 cecill |cvw cecill-b |ecl-1.0 cecill-c |ecl-2.0 clarifiedartisti |efl-1.0 clearbsd |efl-2.0 commonpubliclice |epl-1.0 condor < cpal < cryptixgeneralli < dsl< ecfonts< ecl2.0 < ecos2.0< ecos20 < eiffel < epl< eudatagrid eudatagrid eupl |eupl-1.1 expat |entessa fdl|fair fdlother |frameworx-1.0 freeart|gpl-2.0 freebsd|gpl-3.0 freebsddl < freetype < gnuallpermissive < gnugpl < gnugplv3 < gnuplot< gplfonts < gplother < gplv2 < hpndhpnd ibmpl |ipa ijg|ipl-1.0 imatix < imlib < informal < intel < ipafont< isc isc josl |intel lgpl |lgpl-2.1 lgplv2.1 |lgpl-3.0 lgplv3 |lpl-1.0 lppl-1.2 |lpl-1.02 lppl-1.3a |lppl-1.3c lucent102 |liliq-p-1.1 modifiedbsd|liliq-r+ mpl|liliq-r-1.1 >mit >mpl-1.0 >mpl-1.1 mpl-2.0 mpl-2.0 ms-pl ms-pl ms-rl ms-rl >miros >motosoto >multics >nasa-1.3 ncsancsa netscapejavascri |ngpl netscapejavascri |nposl-3.0 newopenldap|ntp >naumen nokia nokia nosl |oclc-2.0 npl|ofl-1.1 odbl |ogtsl oldopenldap|opl-2.1 openpublicationl |osl-1.0 openssl|osl-2.1 originalbsd|osl-3.0 osl|php-3.0 perllicense|postgresql phorum |python-2.0 php-3.01 |qpl-1.0 publicdomain |rpl-1.1 python |rpl-1.5 python1.6a2|rpsl-1.0 pythonold |rscpl qpl< realopl< rpsl < ruby < sgifreeb < silofl < sissl sissl spl|spl-1.0 standardmlofnj |simple-2.0 unicode|sleepycat unlicense < upl upl vim|vsl-1.0 w3c w3c webm |wxwindows wtfpl |watcom-1.0 wx |xnet x11license |zpl-2.0 xfree861.1licens < xinetd < yahoo < zend < zimbra < zlibzlib zope |jabberpl zope2.0< zope20 < Some of the reported differences are from different IDs (e.g. Expat vs. MIT and AGPLv3.0 vs AGPL-3.0). And the OSI may have approved more licenses than it lists in the API [3]. But that may get you started. With automated text matching (ideally based on an easy way to get the approved license text from both the OSI and FSF) you could address the ID-mismatch issue automatically. Cheers, Trevor [1]: In a developer console on
