Hi Yenri - Very good points - some responses below
Gary From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:07 PM To: Gary O'Neall Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Machine representation of deprecated licenses Few ponderings: * Is there any leeway for confusion as to what deprecated means with a license? I take it to mean 'we, license authors, don't believe it should be used for new works'. [Gary] We probably do need to more precisely define this. My interpretation is that the SPDX listed license should not be used for new SPDX documents or other references to the license list, usually due to a better way of expressing the same license (e.g. a license expression can be used to express was used to be documented as a separate license). I don't interpret the meaning to be that license authors prefer a new license to be used (although that is a legitimate use case to be supported). * Is there a more general notion of guidance here? <guidance>deprecated</guidance> or <guidance>draft</guidance> etc - not sure if there are other possibilities. [Gary] Although I like the idea of generalizing the term - the primary use case is to make it easy for tools to filter which is easiest if there is a specific tag for deprecated, so I'm leaning to keeping the more specific tag. lf we did want to have a more general term, I would suggest "status" (similar to RDF term_status which may be deprecated, stable, or unstable). * Sometimes a best practice when deprecating is to point to what folk should use. deprecated: Apache 1.1, use-instead: Apache 2.0; might be worth supporting if the data supports it. The first set of deprecated licenses I can think of all have successors, but I imagine there will be ones which don't have a specific successor. [Gary] I like this idea - we could include another tag to denote this. This is in the notes today, but perhaps we could add a specific tag. One challenge is the "use instead" would be a license expression, not a license ID, so we need to be careful how we define the range of the "use-instead" term. Hen On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> wrote: Greetings all - I would like to add a mechanism for representing listed licenses that have been marked as deprecated in the JSON and RDFa formats for licenses on the spdx.org/licenses website. My proposal is to add a property "spdx:deprecated" in the RDFa and just "deprecated" in the JSON with a boolean value of true or false. It would be treated as optional with a default value of false. This should be backwards compatible since it is an addition of an optional field. Two questions - any objections to this proposal? - where should we document this? We could add it in the Other License Information section (currently number 5), although, I think it would only logically apply to the listed license. We do not have a separate section for Other Licensing information". Let me know what you think and if you would like to add it to one of the future tech calls to discuss. Thanks, Gary ------------------------------------------------- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
