Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:41:03 +0200 From: Marco =?utf-8?q?Br=C3=B6der?= <marco.broeder@gmx.eu> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org>, alepulver@freebsd.org Subject: Re: License Framework: Develop Best Practices Message-ID: <201010231942.00330.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> In-Reply-To: <20100615212235.GA73036@atarininja.org> References: <201006150247.20325.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> <20100615212235.GA73036@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart3208352.5kGHLaR1Oy Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue June 15 2010 23:22:35 Wesley Shields wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:46:27AM +0200, Marco Br=C3=B6der wrote: > > Hello, > >=20 > > I know the ports license framework is very new and not mature yet. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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). > >=20 > > Before this even grows, could we please start developing best > > practices and document them into Porters Handbook, as soon as > > possible? Thanks! >=20 > 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. >=20 > Hopefully Alejandro has a PH update in the wings? If not then I guess > it's up to someone(TM) to do it. >=20 > -- WXS I neither saw a reply from alepulver@ nor anything else on this subject. Ar= e=20 there any further news? There was nothing added to the Porter's Handbook, t= oo.=20 So I guess the situation did not change within the last months, right? Unfortunately, with a recent update to one of my ports (the software is -GP= Lv2=20 or any later version- licensed) the committer added the LICENSE / LICENSE_C= OMB=20 foo at his own without asking. I find this annoying, because I purposely di= d=20 not add it. Something like that should be the maintainer's choice, because = he=20 is also responsible for the port. I think the LICENSE stuff should generally not be added until the whole=20 subject is clarified and properly documented, which does not seem to be the= =20 case, especially from the legal point of view. What should the license framework be? Looks like nobody really seems to car= e=20 (enough). Will it remain a legally incorrect and unreliable stuff? Then, there is no= =20 need to actually care about it and the whole license framework is pretty=20 much useless in a legal sense. But that must be stated explicitly. Or should it be as correct as possible? Then it is necessary to have the=20 licenses at least correctly defined and used like they exist (see my origin= al=20 mail quoted above and below, especially the '[L]GPLv2 or any later version'= =20 and the three BSD licenses). Will there be an official consensus? Will there be rules or disclaimers for= =20 maintainer's and committer's responsibility? Will the whole thing be proper= ly=20 documented in the Porter's Handbook? Will the licenses be correctly defined= in=20 'ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk' or will some of them remain incorrectly=20 simplified? The license framework could be very nice and actually useful - if=20 properly done ... > > I will start with a few points: > >=20 > > *** bsd.license.db.mk *** > >=20 > > We really need to rework it. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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: > >=20 > > LICENSE=3D LGPLv2 LGPLv2.1 LGPLv3 LGPLv3.1 LGPLv3.2 > > LICENSE_COMB=3D dual > >=20 > > ... 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. > >=20 > > Here is my suggestion what should be there at a minimum (probably more > > needed): > >=20 > > *** > >=20 > > ARTLv1.0 # Artistic License 1.0 > > ARTLv2.0 # Artistic License 2.0 > >=20 > > ASLv1.1 # Apache License 1.1 > > ASLv2.0 # Apache License 2.0 > >=20 > > BSD-2-clause # Simplified BSD License > > BSD-3-clause # Modified or New BSD License > > BSD-4-clause # Original BSD License > >=20 > > BSLv1.0 # Boost Software License 1.0 > >=20 > > CDDLv1.0 # Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 > >=20 > > EPLv1.0 # Eclipse Public License 1.0 > >=20 > > GFDLv1.1 # GNU Free Documentation License 1.1 > > GFDLv1.2 # GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > GFDLv1.3 # GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 > >=20 > > 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 > >=20 > > ISC # ISC License > >=20 > > 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 versi= on > > LGPLv3 # GNU Lesser General Public License 3 > > LGPLv3+ # GNU Lesser General Public License 3 or any later version > >=20 > > MIT # MIT license > >=20 > > MPLv1.0 # Mozilla Public License 1.0 > > MPLv1.1 # Mozilla Public License 1.1 > >=20 > > PD # Public Domain license > >=20 > > X11 # X11 license > >=20 > > *** > >=20 > > There are probably more licenses and / or versions to add or to change. > >=20 > > And there are most likely more issues to discuss ... >=20 =2D-=20 Regards --nextPart3208352.5kGHLaR1Oy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAABCAAGBQJMwx5oAAoJEEjQ6Txo1AoUza4P/1isYDYAChHarpMVTHXmEdTu Sm1Y5XT8pwEof3FzbVwi+k3TO22X1DeGR0WUcTQPJxEX5AkZ0ygW1r/qjs3EqV+9 +3erPzsVhul66Rig1b4pqod6hjcBpmY8ycinK9qtztQm11FBMNfQQPrgM2i0qMKi U1fpFI0M44Byggvsxj1muD2uTgPFmDQ/T7FU5erECb2zaiMv/uBPDpTxKjcUtYJW 1kQTQ6xPqzE00/6og4q6lEafSWXx1WyJ54bgHuPmLBG3cfjw/p9vJ5A2t+c2TGp1 WV5TEOA/jNdTdbVdwEzzW2/vufEp3i61bfzOkEqhyjHIf9Nh38KJSP+Bdlsi0KPF noC8xQopJIKofnxoR/Kr8ywt0NfRHd7Q+uJtxoKD4f/OqUguKtfpZnAMDJR2M/yV jxEVh17RPyBPgTs/6OpE9no8Bm82WUsUEAyb9EPT+b7BZcLhAvoFStaLAHLpfoo9 Tj7YLsbD/0bWh2aWMivtXG+HduPM8a4X3rqfpAFKk5DHNg/HVrYaGjTko1NAjDpv PY8OQaeNnxzI8FRUZEEg4tqd+L7jRAIZW1iqL9yV4d5xT2b2JxJjcciGjasG7+fZ ycHJc3lceSSYeD0KDz5WkzK/wOFPiNnKEmUJeMh2svd0WshvWFVjgupw0gnBBFEU sBHO8ELsrSJNDyajtN9N =zOr5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3208352.5kGHLaR1Oy--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201010231942.00330.marco.broeder>