Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2014-02-26 Thread opensource 
Hi Luis,Sorry for the delayed response, I get these emails in digest form, so Phil was asking me about a response before I had managed to see your question.Here is the full answer and explanation of process and progress:We finally came to some agreement as to how much to rely upon the guidelines, how much markup (as little as possible) to implement and how to go about implementing it at (or a bit after) the LF Collab Summit last April. In terms of work to be done, we (the SPDX Legal Team) would need to review all of the licenses (well over 200) and determine which needed markup and where. Then someone would need to create the actual markup.  We tried a couple ways to go about this somewhat tedious process of reviewing the licenses - e.g. divvying up review of the licenses among team members, etc. - and I finally volunteered to do a first pass myself and then bring any issues/questions to the Legal Team (thinking this would be more efficient...)  This also allows for some other more aesthetic cleanup, the details of which I won't go into here, but from which OSI or others might also benefit in terms of how text displays on web pages).  Daniel German (of Ninka) had volunteered to do the actual markup (which he started here: https://github.com/dmgerman/spdxTemplates ), but considering he needs input from the SPDX Legal Team to advise him on what should be marked up for each license he is log-jammed for progress by us (well, really, me to be honest).   Once all of that is done, a new version of the SPDX License List will be released, which will include the files that have markup.In my defense :), that I have fallen down on the job may not be all bad as it may enable one big integrated update including some other inter-related initiatives we are working on for the next version of the SPDX License List instead of several incremental ones. In any case, I am very intent on having this wrapped up by or shortly after Collab Summit.Another thing that might be helpful to understand for your purposes is how the SPDX License List web pages are generated: the "master" list is kept in a spreadsheet and corresponding .txt files for each license - the current version for which is located here: http://git.spdx.org/?p=license-list.git;a=summary  From this "raw data," a conversion tool by Gary O'Neall creates the much prettier list and individual license web pages that you actually see here: http://spdx.org/licenses/  I am greatly understating Gary's work here, but that is the general gist of the process and order of things.  (Admittedly, this needs to be better explained on the SPDX website - another item on the to-do list.)Hope that information helps.  Happy to discuss/explain more as needed.cheers,JilayneSPDX Legal Team co-leadcc SPDX-Legal list & dmg
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2014-02-25 Thread Philip Odence 
Below is a simple example of a marked up license.

The symbols << and >> designate the beginning and end of mark up statements.
In this case the top section is optional and marked as such with beginoptional 
and endoptional.
Within that and further down in the text are a total of three places where a 
copyright holders name can be used. For each of those is instruction on 
matching using a simple regex, in this case .+ which means any string of 
characters. For each there is also an example and also a variable name so the 
actual text could be captured.

This (in addition to the aforementioned matching guidelines) is to instruct a 
person or a program how to go about matching this license to some license text 
found in the wild.

I continue to think it would be valuable to have a call with a couple of 
representatives from each organization to explore synergies.


   <>

Copyright (c) < 
;match=.+;example=John Doe>>
All rights reserved.
<

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <> "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

From: Phil Odence 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:14 AM
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI 
approved licenses?

We'll get you some examples and some more detail, but the main idea is to 
support matching (for both humans and programs). The idea is to do as much as 
we can with the general guidelines, but to mark up where need be (as in my BSD 
copyright text example).


From: Luis Villa mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:21 PM
To: License Discuss 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI 
approved licenses?

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:02 AM, J Lovejoy 
mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

We are in the process of updating the text files with markup to implement the 
license matching guidelines located here: 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines - the goal being to 
provide a way to ensure that when one SPDX user identifies a license, it is 
reliably the same as when another SPDX user identifies the same license.  Of 
course, the main example of this is the BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses and Apache 
1.1, which may include the names of the specific copyright holder even though 
the rest of the license is exactly the same (goal being to avoid concluding 
every BSD-3-Clause with a different copyright holder name gets identified as a 
different license.)

Hi, Jilayne, Phil-
What is the intended markup here? The matching guidelines seem useful, but it 
isn't clear to me what a license marked up that way would look like. Is there 
an example somewhere?

Luis
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2014-02-25 Thread Philip Odence 
We'll get you some examples and some more detail, but the main idea is to 
support matching (for both humans and programs). The idea is to do as much as 
we can with the general guidelines, but to mark up where need be (as in my BSD 
copyright text example).


From: Luis Villa mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:21 PM
To: License Discuss 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI 
approved licenses?

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:02 AM, J Lovejoy 
mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

We are in the process of updating the text files with markup to implement the 
license matching guidelines located here: 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines - the goal being to 
provide a way to ensure that when one SPDX user identifies a license, it is 
reliably the same as when another SPDX user identifies the same license.  Of 
course, the main example of this is the BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses and Apache 
1.1, which may include the names of the specific copyright holder even though 
the rest of the license is exactly the same (goal being to avoid concluding 
every BSD-3-Clause with a different copyright holder name gets identified as a 
different license.)

Hi, Jilayne, Phil-
What is the intended markup here? The matching guidelines seem useful, but it 
isn't clear to me what a license marked up that way would look like. Is there 
an example somewhere?

Luis
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2014-02-23 Thread Luis Villa 
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:02 AM, J Lovejoy  wrote:

>
> We are in the process of updating the text files with markup to implement
> the license matching guidelines located here:
> http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines - the goal being to
> provide a way to ensure that when one SPDX user identifies a license, it is
> reliably the same as when another SPDX user identifies the same license.
>  Of course, the main example of this is the BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses and
> Apache 1.1, which may include the names of the specific copyright holder
> even though the rest of the license is exactly the same (goal being to
> avoid concluding every BSD-3-Clause with a different copyright holder name
> gets identified as a different license.)


Hi, Jilayne, Phil-
What is the intended markup here? The matching guidelines seem useful, but
it isn't clear to me what a license marked up that way would look like. Is
there an example somewhere?

Luis
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2014-02-10 Thread J Lovejoy 
Hi All,

A little behind in my email lists reading, but I know that Phil Odence already 
posted about this topic and the possibility of sharing the work that SPDX is 
already doing along these lines.  I did not see any response to his post, so 
thought I’d bring it up again.

In short, what you see on the SPDX.org/licenses web page is actually generated 
from a “master” spreadsheet listing the license names, short identifiers, etc. 
and corresponding text files with the license text.  That blob is available on 
Git here: http://git.spdx.org/?p=license-list.git;a=summary 

We are in the process of updating the text files with markup to implement the 
license matching guidelines located here: 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines - the goal being to 
provide a way to ensure that when one SPDX user identifies a license, it is 
reliably the same as when another SPDX user identifies the same license.  Of 
course, the main example of this is the BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses and Apache 
1.1, which may include the names of the specific copyright holder even though 
the rest of the license is exactly the same (goal being to avoid concluding 
every BSD-3-Clause with a different copyright holder name gets identified as a 
different license.)

In any case, this work is on-going currently.  I’d hate to see someone else 
expend the time to do something similar, so it seems wise to coordinate efforts 
in some way or at least discuss how to do so.  

Cheers,

Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
[email protected]


On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:

> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
>   [email protected]
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   [email protected]
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   [email protected]
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved
>  licenses? (Luis Villa)
>   2. Re: [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of  OSI approved
>  licenses? (Karl Fogel)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:00:21 -0800
> From: Luis Villa 
> To: License Discuss 
> Cc: Joe Murray ,
>   "[email protected]" ,
> Simon
>   Phipps 
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable
>   source of OSI approved licenses?
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Patrick Masson wrote:
> 
>> Could this be a working group?
>> 
> 
> It seems to me still too unformed an idea, and with too few people
> committed to actually working on it, to make it a WG. But I may be
> misreading the level of committed involvement.
> 
> Luis
> 
> 
>> 
>> On 12/19/2013 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps 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 
>> 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 -
>>> 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/ 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 and provide
>>> auto-download services for via civicrm.org are using licenses approved
>>> by OSI. However, the request seems of broader interest. Karl

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2014-02-04 Thread Karl Fogel 
Luis Villa  writes:
>It seems to me still too unformed an idea, and with too few people
>committed to actually working on it, to make it a WG. But I may be
>misreading the level of committed involvement.

Well, i think the idea is pretty well formed; it's just a matter of
actually doing it.  I'm not sure it needs a WG either, though; it's
quite susceptible to being done by a contractor, or by volunteers who
would like to make it happen.


___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2014-02-04 Thread Luis Villa 
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Patrick Masson wrote:

>  Could this be a working group?
>

It seems to me still too unformed an idea, and with too few people
committed to actually working on it, to make it a WG. But I may be
misreading the level of committed involvement.

Luis


>
> On 12/19/2013 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps 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 
> 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 -
>> 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/ 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 and provide
>> auto-download services for via civicrm.org 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-718213/.
>> While early on most civicrm.org listed extensions were hosted on
>> drupal.org 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 from one type of node
>> to another, then doing a bit of cleanup to support some requirements for
>> automated use. Looking at opensource.org, 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 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, and the differences
>> between the 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' sections of
>> http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0 and http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0+).
>> 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
>> [email protected]
>> skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray
>> 416.466.1281
>>
>> ___
>> Infrastructure mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://projects.opensource

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2014-01-07 Thread Patrick Masson 

Could this be a working group?

On 12/19/2013 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps 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 
mailto:[email protected]>> 
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  - 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/ 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
 and provide auto-download services for via
civicrm.org  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-718213/.
While early on most civicrm.org  listed
extensions were hosted on drupal.org  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
 from one type of node to another, then
doing a bit of cleanup to support some requirements for automated
use. Looking at opensource.org , 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
 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, and the
differences between the 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New
Programs' sections of http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0 and
http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0+). 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
[email protected] 
skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray
416.466.1281 

___
Infrastructure mailing

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2013-12-29 Thread Karl Fogel 
Luis Villa  writes:
>I'm actually somewhat skeptical that section numbering will survive
>Markdown, but we should at least give it a try. (And that's a
>non-trivial problem, since people refer to "Sec X(y)" fairly
>frequently in outside documents, so changing how those are
>rendered/presented is problematic; how those are handled also varies
>from Markdown implementation to Markdown implementation).

Oh, section numbers absolutely have to be correct, yeah.  But in the
worst case scenario, one can just hard-code the section numbers (I don't
know the exact Markdown escape syntax or whatever would be required; I
just mean we don't have to use Markdown's auto-numbering for lists and
sublists unless it actually does what we need).

-K
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2013-12-29 Thread Karl Fogel 
Joe Murray  writes:
>I haven't played with this previously. 
>
>I think a good way to start would be to set up the following Drupal
>modules and try putting up a few licenses with simple and complex
>formatting needs:
>https://drupal.org/project/markdown
>https://drupal.org/project/markdowneditor
>https://drupal.org/project/bueditor
>https://drupal.org/project/ajax_markup
>https://drupal.org/project/bueditor_plus

Note we already have the Markdown formatting module(s) installed,
AFAICT.  The test can commence any time :-).

-K
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2013-12-28 Thread Joe Murray 
I haven't played with this previously.

I think a good way to start would be to set up the following Drupal modules
and try putting up a few licenses with simple and complex formatting needs:
https://drupal.org/project/markdown
https://drupal.org/project/markdowneditor
https://drupal.org/project/bueditor
https://drupal.org/project/ajax_markup
https://drupal.org/project/bueditor_plus

Thanks very much to John Sullivan for the offer of assistance which I will
be taking up after I return from vacation in the second week of January.


Joe Murray, PhD
President, JMA Consulting
[email protected]
skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray
416.466.1281


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Luis Villa  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Karl Fogel  wrote:
> > Joe Murray  writes:
> >>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.
> >
> > A technical suggestion:
> >
> > If we use Markdown as the plaintext format -- which would be reasonable,
> > as every license I can think of would look fine both as Markdown source
> > text and as HTML rendered from that
>
> I'm actually somewhat skeptical that section numbering will survive
> Markdown, but we should at least give it a try. (And that's a
> non-trivial problem, since people refer to "Sec X(y)" fairly
> frequently in outside documents, so changing how those are
> rendered/presented is problematic; how those are handled also varies
> from Markdown implementation to Markdown implementation).
>
> Otherwise, I agree that standardizing on Markdown and providing
> machine-readable licenses would be ideal, and it is worth
> experimenting to see if this can be done.
>
> Luis
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2013-12-28 Thread Luis Villa 
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Karl Fogel  wrote:
> Joe Murray  writes:
>>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.
>
> A technical suggestion:
>
> If we use Markdown as the plaintext format -- which would be reasonable,
> as every license I can think of would look fine both as Markdown source
> text and as HTML rendered from that

I'm actually somewhat skeptical that section numbering will survive
Markdown, but we should at least give it a try. (And that's a
non-trivial problem, since people refer to "Sec X(y)" fairly
frequently in outside documents, so changing how those are
rendered/presented is problematic; how those are handled also varies
from Markdown implementation to Markdown implementation).

Otherwise, I agree that standardizing on Markdown and providing
machine-readable licenses would be ideal, and it is worth
experimenting to see if this can be done.

Luis
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2013-12-28 Thread Nuno Brito 

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: [email protected]
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
[email protected]
skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray
416.466.1281

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps 
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
 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-718213/

[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

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2013-12-25 Thread Joe Murray 
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.

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
[email protected]
skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray
416.466.1281


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps  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 
> 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 - 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/ 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 and provide
>> auto-download services for via civicrm.org 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-718213/.
>> While early on most civicrm.org listed extensions were hosted on
>> drupal.org 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 from one type of node to
>> another, then doing a bit of cleanup to support some requirements for
>> automated use. Looking at opensource.org, 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 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, and the differences
>> between the 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' sections of
>> http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0 and http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0+).
>> 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 OS

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2013-12-19 Thread Karl Fogel 
Joe Murray  writes:
>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. 

A technical suggestion:

If we use Markdown as the plaintext format -- which would be reasonable,
as every license I can think of would look fine both as Markdown source
text and as HTML rendered from that -- then we can just use Drupal's
Markdown format as the default format for all licenses.  This would
enable us to use the same underlying source for both on-site HTML and
plaintext versions.

Right now, our licenses are all in "Full HTML" format.  For example, if
you go to

  http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

and and click on Edit (you'll need to be logged in), you'll see that

  http://opensource.org/node/41/edit

is set to "Full HTML".  What I'm proposing is that we redo them all as
"Markdown" instead, such that

  http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

still looks basically as it does now (Drupal will render the Markdown as
HTML), but if someone visits a special URL, then they get the raw
Markdown source, which happens to be a good plaintext version of the
license.

That special URL would be something like one of these:

  http://opensource.org/licenses/txt/Apache-2.0
  http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0.txt
  http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0.md

(I'm not sure which one I prefer; this is just to give you an idea.)

Some custom coding -- maybe a new module that we release? -- would be
necessary to achieve this, but the benefit over time would be big: we
only need to maintain one master source for every license.

I don't have experience writing Drupal modules, but from an admin and
user perspective, the above achieves our goals I think.

-Karl
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Infrastructure] Machine readable source of OSI approved licenses?

2013-12-19 Thread Simon Phipps 
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 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 - 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/ 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 and provide auto-download
> services for via civicrm.org 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-718213/.
> While early on most civicrm.org listed extensions were hosted on
> drupal.org 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 from one type of node to
> another, then doing a bit of cleanup to support some requirements for
> automated use. Looking at opensource.org, 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.orgwere 
> 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, and the differences
> between the 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' sections of
> http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0 and http://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0+).
> 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
> [email protected]
> skype JosephPMurray twitter JoeMurray
> 416.466.1281
>
> ___
> Infrastructure mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
>


-- 
*Simon Phipps*  http://webmink.com
*Meshed Insights Ltd *
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss