Discussion:
license naming
(too old to reply)
ng0
2017-12-22 18:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I've just read this link: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2

Full Quote:

> In this article, For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say "Licensed under GNU GPL 2"!, Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman (RMS) explains how to properly identify what GNU license your work is under. Whenever a developer releases their work under a GNU license, they have the option to either release it under that version of the license only, or to make it available under any later version of that license. This option ensures that software can remain compatible with future versions of the license. But what happens if someone just says their program is under GNU GPL version 2, for example?
>
>> [T]hey are leaving the licensing of the program unclear. Is it released under GPL-2.0-only, or GPL-2.0-or-later? Can you merge the code with packages released under GPL-3.0-or-later?
>
> Thus, it is vitally important that developers indicate in their license notices whether they are licensing their work under that version "only" or under "any later version." Of course, these days it is also helpful for license notices to be machine-readable. The Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification sets a standardized way of identifying licenses on software packages. They are updating their license identifiers to include this distinction in their upcoming version. For example, for GNU GPL version 2, the identifiers are now "GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later." The old identifiers (e.g. "GPL-2.0") are now deprecated and should no longer be used. Based on the changes SPDX says are coming in the SPDX specification and its Web site, the FSF expects to endorse the new version of the SPDX. We thank SPDX and their community for making these helpful changes.


Maybe we could make use of what https://spdx.org/licenses/
provides. I didn't compare the names with our names, I'll do
this on the train next week.
Good idea, bad idea?
--
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://c.n0.is/ng0_pubkeys/tree/keys
WWW: https://n0.is
Jelle Licht
2017-12-22 18:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
ng0 <***@n0.is> writes:

> I've just read this link: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2
>
> Full Quote:
>
>> In this article, For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say "Licensed under GNU GPL 2"!, Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman (RMS) explains how to properly identify what GNU license your work is under. Whenever a developer releases their work under a GNU license, they have the option to either release it under that version of the license only, or to make it available under any later version of that license. This option ensures that software can remain compatible with future versions of the license. But what happens if someone just says their program is under GNU GPL version 2, for example?
>>
>>> [T]hey are leaving the licensing of the program unclear. Is it released under GPL-2.0-only, or GPL-2.0-or-later? Can you merge the code with packages released under GPL-3.0-or-later?
>>
>> Thus, it is vitally important that developers indicate in their license notices whether they are licensing their work under that version "only" or under "any later version." Of course, these days it is also helpful for license notices to be machine-readable. The Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification sets a standardized way of identifying licenses on software packages. They are updating their license identifiers to include this distinction in their upcoming version. For example, for GNU GPL version 2, the identifiers are now "GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later." The old identifiers (e.g. "GPL-2.0") are now deprecated and should no longer be used. Based on the changes SPDX says are coming in the SPDX specification and its Web site, the FSF expects to endorse the new version of the SPDX. We thank SPDX and their community for making these helpful changes.
>
>
> Maybe we could make use of what https://spdx.org/licenses/
> provides. I didn't compare the names with our names, I'll do
> this on the train next week.
> Good idea, bad idea?

We already have a `spdx-string->license' function in
`(guix import utils)', in case you need a starting point. It
makes sense to me to use a de facto way of referring to licenses,
but I am not sure whether this has some disadvantages compared to the
currently used way of referring to licenses.

- Jelle
ng0
2017-12-22 18:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jelle Licht transcribed 2.3K bytes:
>
> ng0 <***@n0.is> writes:
>
> > I've just read this link: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2
> >
> > Full Quote:
> >
> >> In this article, For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say "Licensed under GNU GPL 2"!, Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman (RMS) explains how to properly identify what GNU license your work is under. Whenever a developer releases their work under a GNU license, they have the option to either release it under that version of the license only, or to make it available under any later version of that license. This option ensures that software can remain compatible with future versions of the license. But what happens if someone just says their program is under GNU GPL version 2, for example?
> >>
> >>> [T]hey are leaving the licensing of the program unclear. Is it released under GPL-2.0-only, or GPL-2.0-or-later? Can you merge the code with packages released under GPL-3.0-or-later?
> >>
> >> Thus, it is vitally important that developers indicate in their license notices whether they are licensing their work under that version "only" or under "any later version." Of course, these days it is also helpful for license notices to be machine-readable. The Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification sets a standardized way of identifying licenses on software packages. They are updating their license identifiers to include this distinction in their upcoming version. For example, for GNU GPL version 2, the identifiers are now "GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later." The old identifiers (e.g. "GPL-2.0") are now deprecated and should no longer be used. Based on the changes SPDX says are coming in the SPDX specification and its Web site, the FSF expects to endorse the new version of the SPDX. We thank SPDX and their community for making these helpful changes.
> >
> >
> > Maybe we could make use of what https://spdx.org/licenses/
> > provides. I didn't compare the names with our names, I'll do
> > this on the train next week.
> > Good idea, bad idea?
>
> We already have a `spdx-string->license' function in
> `(guix import utils)', in case you need a starting point. It
> makes sense to me to use a de facto way of referring to licenses,
> but I am not sure whether this has some disadvantages compared to the
> currently used way of referring to licenses.
>
> - Jelle

My "problem", or rather the question I pose is: Does it make sense to
adjust how the license is displayed? Like instead of "GPL 2" We'd display
"GPL 2.0 only" and instead of "GPL 2+" (no example at hand to test if this
is the current display) we'd display "GPL 2 or later".
--
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://c.n0.is/ng0_pubkeys/tree/keys
WWW: https://n0.is
Ludovic Courtès
2017-12-22 21:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
ng0 <***@n0.is> skribis:

> My "problem", or rather the question I pose is: Does it make sense to
> adjust how the license is displayed? Like instead of "GPL 2" We'd display
> "GPL 2.0 only" and instead of "GPL 2+" (no example at hand to test if this
> is the current display) we'd display "GPL 2 or later".

Sure, that sounds reasonable to me.

Ludo’.
Loading...