Hello, My name is Josiah Krutz, and I am student developer working with Matt Germonprez at UNO.
Just a quick thought on this thread: Would *isDeprecatedLicenseId* be a better field name? That way, no one would read *deprecatedLicenseId* and think that the field might contain the ID of a deprecated license? Thanks! Josiah On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree as well. Specific suggestion on the RDF term and JSON field name: > > RDF - spdx:deprecatedLicenseId > > JSON - deprecatedLicenseId > > > Range for both - boolean value > > > > Gary > > > > *From:* Manbeck, Jack [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 7:27 AM > *To:* Wheeler, David A; Henri Yandell; Gary O'Neall > > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: Machine representation of deprecated licenses > > > > Agreed. I like that term. > > > > Jack > > > > > > *From:* Wheeler, David A [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 10:22 AM > *To:* Manbeck, Jack; Henri Yandell; Gary O'Neall > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: Machine representation of deprecated licenses > > > > I suggest that everyone use the term “deprecated license identifier”; > don’t use “deprecated license” or “deprecated.” > > > > The obvious interpretation for the term “deprecated license” is that the > license itself is forbidden going forward, and that’s not the intent here. > > > > --- David A. Wheeler > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Manbeck, Jack > *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 9:47 AM > *To:* Henri Yandell; Gary O'Neall > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: Machine representation of deprecated licenses > > > > Hen, > > > > It’s possible we need to better define it somewhere. The idea behind > deprecation was simple. It meant that identifier should not be used going > forward, if possible, but it still exists, is valid and points to a license > page. The idea was that license identifiers will remain immutable and exist > basically forever. That said, sometimes change is necessary thus the term > deprecation. It doesn’t mean you can’t use that license it just means > there is a newer identifier for it. I do think some best practices or > explanation around it would be useful. Here is what the license list > currently says which is okay as an explanation of why we did these > particular ones but not how these things could/should be handled . > > > > Jack > > > > > Deprecated Licenses > > Release 2.0 of the SPDX Specification introduces *License Expression > Syntax <http://spdx.org/SPDX-specifications/spdx-version-2.0>* that > supports the ability to identify common variations of SPDX-identified > licenses without the need to define each potential variation as a distinct > license on the SPDX License List. This new syntax supports the ability to > use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate “or > later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+). It also supports the ability to declare an > SPDX-identified *license exception* > <http://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html> using the “WITH” > operator (e.g. GPL-2.0+ WITH Autoconf-exception-2.0). SPDX has defined a > list of license exceptions to use after the “WITH” operator. As a result, a > number of licenses formerly included in the SPDX License List have been > deprecated as licenses, and correct usage employs the License Expression > Syntax as of v2.0. The URL to each deprecated license still exists and > those license pages have been updated to note the deprecation. Other > licenses may have been deprecated for reasons noted. > > > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Henri Yandell > *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:07 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'. > > * Is there a more general notion of guidance here? > <guidance>deprecated</guidance> or <guidance>draft</guidance> etc - not > sure if there are other possibilities. > > * 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. > > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
