-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 299
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New GNU identifiers #553
New GNU identifiers #553
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few requested changes - the most important in the AGPL-3.0-or-later - updating the license header.
We could add the license headers for LGPL 3.0 - or it could be done next release.
Other comments are more style nits. For the notes in the deprecated licenses, I would suggest changing the wording to "lieu of the more explicit license identifier ...". I added that comment to the first 2 deprecated licenses, but not to all of the deprecated licenses.
src/AGPL-3.0-or-later.xml
Outdated
Copyright (C)<alt name="copyright" match=".+">[year] [name of author]</alt> | ||
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it | ||
under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published | ||
by the Free Software Foundation, version 3. This program is distributed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The standard license header should have a version 3 or later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here is the text for the second paragraph in the license header from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html:
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we have <optional>
in standardLicenseHeader? If yes, I would put the "(at your option)" as optional.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since this license ID is only associated with the "or-later", I think it should just be in the license header, not enclosed by optional.
BTW - optional and alt tags are allowed in the license header.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that "or later" should be in the header.
I was talking about "(at your option)" which is not always there: "either version 3 of the License, or any later version." e.g. https://bat.mpp.mpg.de/?page=license
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ahhh - agree we should wrap the "(at your option)" in optional tags.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a pull request with the optional tags - once approved, we can merge it into this PR.
</crossRefs> | ||
<notes> | ||
DEPRECATED: Deprecated in lieu of more | ||
explicit license identifier of AGPL-3.0-only |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit - suggest minor wording change: " Deprecated in lieu of the more
explicit license identifier AGPL-3.0-only
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The 2 notes element is allowed by the schema. I just verified the tools includes all notes in the license HTML files (and other output file formats).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jlovejoy Feel free to update or ignore the comment on the notes wording change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BTW, there are a couple of licenses now with two distinct
<notes>
elements. I hope this is allowed...
I think this is an XSD typo, because the intention with:
<element name="notes" type="tns:formattedFixedTextType" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
seems to be to only allow a single entry. I'll file an XSD patch. I'm fine allowing multiple entries if we use <note>
, but I think having multiple <notes>
is strange.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll file an XSD patch
Ah, looks like I already covered this with the <choice>
→ <all>
change in #452.
</crossRefs> | ||
<notes> | ||
DEPRECATED: Deprecated in lieu of more | ||
explicit license identifier of GFDL-1.1-only |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same suggested wording change "lieu fo the more explicit license identifier ...
src/GPL-1.0-only.xml
Outdated
<notes> | ||
DEPRECATED: Deprecated in lieu of more | ||
explicit license identifier of GPL-1.0-only | ||
</notes> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This note should be replaced or removed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Of course. Sorry about that... too many files and variants at some point.
<notes> | ||
This license was released: June 1991. This license has | ||
been superseded by LGPL v2.1 This refers to when this | ||
LGPL 2.0 only is being used (as opposed to "or later). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Missing end " after later
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note - this was an issue with the original text unrelated to the changes for the new license ID's
</crossRefs> | ||
<notes> | ||
This license was released: 29 June 2007. This refers to when | ||
this LGPL 3.0 only is being used (as opposed to "or later). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Missing end " after later
<notes> | ||
This license was released: 29 June 2007. | ||
</notes> | ||
<titleText> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need the license header for LGPL 3.0 or later?
GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE<br></br> | ||
Version 3, 29 June 2007 | ||
</p> | ||
</titleText> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to add the standard license header?
src/AGPL-3.0.xml
Outdated
<crossRef>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0</crossRef> | ||
</crossRefs> | ||
<standardLicenseHeader> | ||
Copyright (C)<alt name="copyright" match=".+">[year] [name of author]</alt> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Update standard header for AGPL-3.0-or-later
Update GPL-1.0-only.xml
Generated with: $ sed -i 's/\(([cC])\)<alt/\1 <alt/' $(git grep -l '[cC])<alt') Like 7af2b40 (BSD-1-Clause: Add a space between "(c)" and "<year>", 2017-12-19, spdx#526), but with more licenses. The ones I'm fixing here were mostly broken by a0879e6 (reformatted (pretty-printed) the 10 GNU licenses, 2017-12-23, spdx#553).
With this PR merged, can someone with write access delete branch |
Generated with: $ sed -i 's/\(([cC])\)<alt/\1 <alt/' $(git grep -l '[cC])<alt') Like 7af2b40 (BSD-1-Clause: Add a space between "(c)" and "<year>", 2017-12-19, spdx#526), but with more licenses. The ones I'm fixing here were mostly broken by a0879e6 (reformatted (pretty-printed) the 10 GNU licenses, 2017-12-23, spdx#553).
Similar to 30cfeab (Merge pull request spdx#553 from spdx/new_GPL_identifiers, 2017-12-27). On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:56:54AM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [1]: > I am conferring with the FSF as to AGPL-1.0 - I will make the > appropriate changes as needed when I get feedback there. No further > discussion needed at this point. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:56:18PM +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [2]: > ... I have confirmed that we should treat AGPL-1.0 that same) as we > suspected. I asked about adding an identifier for the AGPL-2.0, and Jilayne replied: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 03:59:28PM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [3]: > no need to add AGPLv2 - we vetted that conversation way back with > key folks who knew the history and it was decided not to add it > then. So, no need to revisit now! :) There's some list discussion around the AGPL-2.0 starting with [4]. My main concern would be preserving the bridge in case affero.org goes down and someone wants to transition an AGPL-1.0-or-later project to AGPL-3.0-or-later. To mitigate my concerns (and avoid surprising folks using AGPL-1.0-or-later), I've discussed the licenses available in a <notes> entry. And just to be safe, here's the whole license text from [5] in a form that will be available in the Git history: AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, November 2007 Copyright © 2007 Affero Inc. 510 Third Street - Suite 225, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA This is version 2 of the Affero General Public License. It gives each licensee permission to distribute the Program or a work based on the Program (as defined in version 1 of the Affero GPL) under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or any later version. If the Program was licensed under version 1 of the Affero GPL "or any later version", no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder of the Program as a result of a licensee's choice to follow this version 2 of the Affero GPL. [1]: spdx#542 (comment) [2]: spdx#542 (comment) [3]: spdx#542 (comment) [4]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2013-November/001033.html Subject: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 Date: Tue Nov 5 19:39:29 UTC 2013 [5]: http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html
Similar to 30cfeab (Merge pull request spdx#553 from spdx/new_GPL_identifiers, 2017-12-27). On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:56:54AM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [1]: > I am conferring with the FSF as to AGPL-1.0 - I will make the > appropriate changes as needed when I get feedback there. No further > discussion needed at this point. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:56:18PM +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [2]: > ... I have confirmed that we should treat AGPL-1.0 that same) as we > suspected. I asked about adding an identifier for the AGPL-2.0, and Jilayne replied: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 03:59:28PM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [3]: > no need to add AGPLv2 - we vetted that conversation way back with > key folks who knew the history and it was decided not to add it > then. So, no need to revisit now! :) There's some list discussion around the AGPL-2.0 starting with [4]. My main concern would be preserving the bridge in case affero.org goes down and someone wants to transition an AGPL-1.0-or-later project to AGPL-3.0-or-later. To mitigate my concerns (and avoid surprising folks using AGPL-1.0-or-later), I've discussed the licenses available in a <notes> entry. And just to be safe, here's the whole license text from [5] in a form that will be available in the Git history: AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, November 2007 Copyright © 2007 Affero Inc. 510 Third Street - Suite 225, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA This is version 2 of the Affero General Public License. It gives each licensee permission to distribute the Program or a work based on the Program (as defined in version 1 of the Affero GPL) under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or any later version. If the Program was licensed under version 1 of the Affero GPL "or any later version", no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder of the Program as a result of a licensee's choice to follow this version 2 of the Affero GPL. [1]: spdx#542 (comment) [2]: spdx#542 (comment) [3]: spdx#542 (comment) [4]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2013-November/001033.html Subject: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 Date: Tue Nov 5 19:39:29 UTC 2013 [5]: http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html
Similar to 30cfeab (Merge pull request spdx#553 from spdx/new_GPL_identifiers, 2017-12-27). On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:56:54AM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [1]: > I am conferring with the FSF as to AGPL-1.0 - I will make the > appropriate changes as needed when I get feedback there. No further > discussion needed at this point. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:56:18PM +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [2]: > ... I have confirmed that we should treat AGPL-1.0 that same) as we > suspected. I asked about adding an identifier for the AGPL-2.0, and Jilayne replied: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 03:59:28PM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [3]: > no need to add AGPLv2 - we vetted that conversation way back with > key folks who knew the history and it was decided not to add it > then. So, no need to revisit now! :) There's some list discussion around the AGPL-2.0 starting with [4]. My main concern would be preserving the bridge in case affero.org goes down and someone wants to transition an AGPL-1.0-or-later project to AGPL-3.0-or-later. To mitigate my concerns (and avoid surprising folks using AGPL-1.0-or-later), I've discussed the licenses available in a <notes> entry. And just to be safe, here's the whole license text from [5] in a form that will be available in the Git history: AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, November 2007 Copyright © 2007 Affero Inc. 510 Third Street - Suite 225, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA This is version 2 of the Affero General Public License. It gives each licensee permission to distribute the Program or a work based on the Program (as defined in version 1 of the Affero GPL) under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or any later version. If the Program was licensed under version 1 of the Affero GPL "or any later version", no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder of the Program as a result of a licensee's choice to follow this version 2 of the Affero GPL. [1]: spdx#542 (comment) [2]: spdx#542 (comment) [3]: spdx#542 (comment) [4]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2013-November/001033.html Subject: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 Date: Tue Nov 5 19:39:29 UTC 2013 [5]: http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html
Similar to 30cfeab (Merge pull request spdx#553 from spdx/new_GPL_identifiers, 2017-12-27). On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:56:54AM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [1]: > I am conferring with the FSF as to AGPL-1.0 - I will make the > appropriate changes as needed when I get feedback there. No further > discussion needed at this point. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:56:18PM +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [2]: > ... I have confirmed that we should treat AGPL-1.0 that same) as we > suspected. I asked about adding an identifier for the AGPL-2.0, and Jilayne replied: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 03:59:28PM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [3]: > no need to add AGPLv2 - we vetted that conversation way back with > key folks who knew the history and it was decided not to add it > then. So, no need to revisit now! :) There's some list discussion around the AGPL-2.0 starting with [4]. My main concern would be preserving the bridge in case affero.org goes down and someone wants to transition an AGPL-1.0-or-later project to AGPL-3.0-or-later. To mitigate my concerns (and avoid surprising folks using AGPL-1.0-or-later), I've discussed the licenses available in a <notes> entry. And just to be safe, here's the whole license text from [5] in a form that will be available in the Git history: AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, November 2007 Copyright © 2007 Affero Inc. 510 Third Street - Suite 225, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA This is version 2 of the Affero General Public License. It gives each licensee permission to distribute the Program or a work based on the Program (as defined in version 1 of the Affero GPL) under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or any later version. If the Program was licensed under version 1 of the Affero GPL "or any later version", no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder of the Program as a result of a licensee's choice to follow this version 2 of the Affero GPL. [1]: spdx#542 (comment) [2]: spdx#542 (comment) [3]: spdx#542 (comment) [4]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2013-November/001033.html Subject: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 Date: Tue Nov 5 19:39:29 UTC 2013 [5]: http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html
Similar to 30cfeab (Merge pull request spdx#553 from spdx/new_GPL_identifiers, 2017-12-27). On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:56:54AM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [1]: > I am conferring with the FSF as to AGPL-1.0 - I will make the > appropriate changes as needed when I get feedback there. No further > discussion needed at this point. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:56:18PM +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [2]: > ... I have confirmed that we should treat AGPL-1.0 that same) as we > suspected. I asked about adding an identifier for the AGPL-2.0, and Jilayne replied: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 03:59:28PM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote [3]: > no need to add AGPLv2 - we vetted that conversation way back with > key folks who knew the history and it was decided not to add it > then. So, no need to revisit now! :) There's some list discussion around the AGPL-2.0 starting with [4]. My main concern would be preserving the bridge in case affero.org goes down and someone wants to transition an AGPL-1.0-or-later project to AGPL-3.0-or-later. To mitigate my concerns (and avoid surprising folks using AGPL-1.0-or-later), I've discussed the licenses available in a <notes> entry. And just to be safe, here's the whole license text from [5] in a form that will be available in the Git history: AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, November 2007 Copyright © 2007 Affero Inc. 510 Third Street - Suite 225, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA This is version 2 of the Affero General Public License. It gives each licensee permission to distribute the Program or a work based on the Program (as defined in version 1 of the Affero GPL) under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or any later version. If the Program was licensed under version 1 of the Affero GPL "or any later version", no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder of the Program as a result of a licensee's choice to follow this version 2 of the Affero GPL. [1]: spdx#542 (comment) [2]: spdx#542 (comment) [3]: spdx#542 (comment) [4]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2013-November/001033.html Subject: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 Date: Tue Nov 5 19:39:29 UTC 2013 [5]: http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html
Here are the new GNU licenses, taking care of #542 and #543.