FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-06-2010, 03:05 PM
Richard Freeman
 
Default Documentation licenses and license_groups

On 01/05/2010 01:07 PM, Duncan wrote:

Periodically there's talk of adding "+" versions of at least the FSF
licenses, but while it would probably be quite a good thing, it'd be a
LOT of VERY boring work poring thru all those packages and either
updating to the + version, or leaving comments in each one saying they'd
been checked already.


I think that this should at least be added. If some things are more
conservatively labeled as v2 when it should be v2+ it doesn't cause all
that much harm. Over time the licenses would get updated, and then we'd
have more useful metadata.


The whole concept of GPL-compatible doesn't work when GPL2 isn't
compatible with GPL3, and vice-versa, and all the way back to 1. At
best we can have GPL3-compatible or GPL2-compatible or whatever. What
happens when GPL4 comes out and we need to edit the group again? What
will that break?
 
Old 01-06-2010, 10:59 PM
Duncan
 
Default Documentation licenses and license_groups

Richard Freeman posted on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:05:52 -0500 as excerpted:

> I think that this should at least be added. If some things are more
> conservatively labeled as v2 when it should be v2+ it doesn't cause all
> that much harm. Over time the licenses would get updated, and then we'd
> have more useful metadata.

I agree. The problem has been finding someone who cares enough about it
to push it thru the process.

Keep in mind that until recently, it wasn't really practical to do
anything (automated, at least) with the license metadata anyway, so
whether we had the "xxx+" license specifiers or not wasn't of any real
practical use anyway. Now that license sets are reasonably working, the
plus licenses would actually have a practical application.

So my guess is that in practice, mostly the same people (plus/minus) who
cared enough to pushed license sets thru from a proposal to working
practicality, will probably be the ones that, now that /that/ works,
will /eventually/ push plus licenses into the mix, for much the same
reason.

BTW, if there's a dev (or group) willing to lead such a thing, put my
name on the list as a user willing to put some time into doing the leg
(aka internet) work on it. I don't know how much, but I'm certainly
interested enough to want to follow developments, and will try to do some
of the leg work, as I can, for the interested devs to look over and
commit.

Gentoo's way of course is to use bugzilla, with a tracker bug. I guess
that's my permission to CC me. =:^)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
 
Old 01-07-2010, 09:03 AM
Hanno Böck
 
Default Documentation licenses and license_groups

Am Dienstag 05 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?):
>
> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
> ("GNU Verbatim Copying License" - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)

I think they don't belong there - no matter what the fsf thinks (I think their
views about different freedoms on software and on documents are a bit weird),
I think we should have a "free" license set which guarantees the four
freedoms, no matter if it's software or documentation.

--
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: hanno@hboeck.de
 
Old 01-07-2010, 10:00 AM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default Documentation licenses and license_groups

>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:

>> Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?):
>>
>> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
>> ("GNU Verbatim Copying License" - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)

> I think they don't belong there - no matter what the fsf thinks

Agreed.

> (I think their views about different freedoms on software and on
> documents are a bit weird), I think we should have a "free" license
> set which guarantees the four freedoms, no matter if it's software
> or documentation.

There are some borderline cases however. For example, man-pages-posix
contains the following clause: "Modifications to the text are
permitted so long as any conflicts with the standard are clearly
marked as such in the text." which is perfectly reasonable in this
special case, but makes it non-free if one follows the definition
blindly. (And indeed, Debian has these man pages in "non-free" which
is stupid, IMHO.)

So the plan is:
- Add GPL-1 and LGPL-2 to @GPL-COMPATIBLE
- Add a new group "@FSF-APPROVED-OTHER" containing the following:
Arphic
CCPL-Attribution-2.0
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0
DSL
FDL-1.1 FDL-1.2 FDL-1.3
FreeArt
GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3
OFL-1.1
OPL

If there are no objections, I'll commit this in the next days.

Ulrich
 
Old 01-07-2010, 11:41 AM
Hanno Böck
 
Default Documentation licenses and license_groups

Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> So the plan is:
> - Add GPL-1 and LGPL-2 to @GPL-COMPATIBLE
> - Add a new group "@FSF-APPROVED-OTHER" containing the following:
> Arphic
> CCPL-Attribution-2.0
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0
> DSL
> FDL-1.1 FDL-1.2 FDL-1.3
> FreeArt
> GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3
> OFL-1.1
> OPL
>
> If there are no objections, I'll commit this in the next days.

I already went ahead and committed two new sets - FREE-DOCUMENTS and MISC-
FREE.

The above ones could probably be all added to FREE-DOCUMENTS.

--
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: hanno@hboeck.de

http://schokokeks.org - professional webhosting
 
Old 01-09-2010, 04:54 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default Documentation licenses and license_groups

>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:

>> - Add GPL-1 and LGPL-2 to @GPL-COMPATIBLE
>> - Add a new group "@FSF-APPROVED-OTHER" containing the following:
>> Arphic
>> CCPL-Attribution-2.0
>> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0
>> DSL
>> FDL-1.1 FDL-1.2 FDL-1.3
>> FreeArt
>> GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3
>> OFL-1.1
>> OPL

> I already went ahead and committed two new sets - FREE-DOCUMENTS and
> MISC-FREE.

> The above ones could probably be all added to FREE-DOCUMENTS.

Done, but I kept the FSF-APPROVED-OTHER set separate so that following
upstream changes will be easier.

And thanks for adding the FREE set and its FREE-{SOFTWARE,DOCUMENTS}
subsets. Accepting @FREE is enough for all packages in stage3, except
for man-pages-posix.

Not sure what we should do about this one. The crucial sentence is:
,----
| Modifications to the text are permitted so long as any conflicts
| with the standard are clearly marked as such in the text.
`----

Any opinions?

Ulrich
 
Old 01-09-2010, 08:31 PM
Vincent Launchbury
 
Default Documentation licenses and license_groups

Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Not sure what we should do about this one. The crucial sentence is:
> ,----
> | Modifications to the text are permitted so long as any conflicts
> | with the standard are clearly marked as such in the text.
> `----
>
> Any opinions?

It seems fine to me. I think it's somewhat analogous to how a modified
TeX file must have a new name: it's a minor annoyance, but it doesn't
particularly restrict the end result.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org