[Fedora-packaging] Re: Revived License: tag proposal

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 14 Dec 2006 13:39:29 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> "SJS" == Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> writes:
>
> SJS> B) One should distinguish v1 and v2 of the GPL. The changes if I
> SJS> remember were rather important. I don't know of any code though
> SJS> under v1.
>
> I recall that the original discussion about this came to the
> conclusion that GPL1 and 2 shouldn't be distinguished.  I'll see if I
> can't dig it up:
>
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:41:43] <abadger1999>      Okay.  License Tags isnext
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:42:09] <tibbs>    List discussion seemed to lean towards this being just a superficial description of the license.
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:42:31] <tibbs>    That we shouldn't try to get too specific with the license tags.
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:42:46] <lutter>   yeah, I don't see that ever being more than an indication
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:42:51] <abadger1999>      I tend to agree with that.
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:43:00] <tibbs>    So "GPL", not "GPLv2" and "GPLv3", etc.
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:43:20] <tibbs>    And "BSD", not "BSD with advertising".
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:43:21] <abadger1999>      The License field shouldn't be misleading, though.
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:44:10] <abadger1999>      So if GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different enough we would want to differentiate.
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:44:13] <tibbs>    And packagers should brave the rpmlint warning rather than lying about the license just to shut it up.
> [Thu Aug 10 2006] [11:44:17] <lutter>   for GPL, I could go either way; if it's BSD with modifications, why not just 'BSD variation'
>

I see a disagreement between abadger and tibbs about 2 and 3. Not 1 & 2.

> SJS> D) I would go for a standardization as the following:
>
> SJS> Name of license, Version of license, File(s) to see details.
>
> Well, that's contrary to pretty much all of the previous discussion.
> How do others feel?

What can I say.. I can be a pretty contrary person. The issue of the
license field is mainly to help inform the user of the rights they can
expect on copying and/or modifying the code/binary. Since most people
only see the compiled source.. it probably doesnt matter if the
license just says: You can distribute/modify it. OR You can't
distribute/modify it.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"