Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:22:35 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Marco Br??der <marco.broeder@gmx.eu>, alepulver@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: License Framework: Develop Best Practices Message-ID: <20100615212235.GA73036@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <201006150247.20325.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> References: <201006150247.20325.marco.broeder@gmx.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:46:27AM +0200, Marco Br??der wrote: > Hello, > > I know the ports license framework is very new and not mature yet. > > But it is not very useful in its current state, because several > popular licenses are missing and some license foo is not right / > specific enough to be considered legally correct (for example there is > no 'one BSD License', there are at least three of them, all legally > different). The legal consequences of even very small differences can > be very huge. We actually have to make this legally right or the whole > thing is useless. > > Some maintainers already added some license foo to their ports. At the > moment there is more guessing than knowing what actually should be > done from a maintainers point of view. This is especially true for > dual / multi / combo licensing (for example 'GPLv2 or any later > version' is not really the same as 'GPLv2 or GPLv3' combo). > > Before this even grows, could we please start developing best > practices and document them into Porters Handbook, as soon as > possible? Thanks! I couldn't agree more. I've been holding off until the Porter's Handbook has clear documentation on what maintainers need to know. I've included alepulver@ on this as he is the one that wrote the initial support for this. I'd hate to see this grow into a mess that has to be cleaned up later because there isn't proper documentation for maintainers. Hopefully Alejandro has a PH update in the wings? If not then I guess it's up to someone(TM) to do it. -- WXS > I will start with a few points: > > *** bsd.license.db.mk *** > > We really need to rework it. > > It should at least contain the most popular / often used licenses > -and- their -correct- versions. The latter is not always the case at > the moment. And the versions should have only -one- format, not > multiples. I suggest to always use a something like 'LGPLv2.1' and not > 'LGPL21'. At least it has to be consistent across all licenses. > > I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or > any later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy > example is not adequate: > > LICENSE= LGPLv2 LGPLv2.1 LGPLv3 LGPLv3.1 LGPLv3.2 > LICENSE_COMB= dual > > ... and so on for every future versions - it does not scale well and > has to be changed with every new future version. Instead it should be > just 'LGPLv2+' and stay there unchanged forever. > > Here is my suggestion what should be there at a minimum (probably more > needed): > > *** > > ARTLv1.0 # Artistic License 1.0 > ARTLv2.0 # Artistic License 2.0 > > ASLv1.1 # Apache License 1.1 > ASLv2.0 # Apache License 2.0 > > BSD-2-clause # Simplified BSD License > BSD-3-clause # Modified or New BSD License > BSD-4-clause # Original BSD License > > BSLv1.0 # Boost Software License 1.0 > > CDDLv1.0 # Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 > > EPLv1.0 # Eclipse Public License 1.0 > > GFDLv1.1 # GNU Free Documentation License 1.1 > GFDLv1.2 # GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > GFDLv1.3 # GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 > > GPLv2 # GNU General Public License 2 > GPLv2+ # GNU General Public License 2 or any later version > GPLv3 # GNU General Public License 3 > GPLv3+ # GNU General Public License 3 or any later version > > ISC # ISC License > > LGPLv2 # GNU Lesser General Public License 2 > LGPLv2+ # GNU Lesser General Public License 2 or any later version > LGPLv2.1 # GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1 > LGPLv2.1+ # GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1 or any later version > LGPLv3 # GNU Lesser General Public License 3 > LGPLv3+ # GNU Lesser General Public License 3 or any later version > > MIT # MIT license > > MPLv1.0 # Mozilla Public License 1.0 > MPLv1.1 # Mozilla Public License 1.1 > > PD # Public Domain license > > X11 # X11 license > > *** > > There are probably more licenses and / or versions to add or to change. > > And there are most likely more issues to discuss ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100615212235.GA73036>