On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:01:18 +0100 Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote: > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only for > > our users to pick from (even on a lonely island) and copy into new > > development project, but also as reference e.g. for testing license > > checkers. > > > > What is _not_ helpful in my opinion, however, is yet another manually > > curated selection of random license texts. What I see generally useful > > is to package this: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML > > That looks like a great list to package. I'll need input on the > repository license status from the legal team as it could be ambiguous
I would be extremely cautious before including license texts as content to be shipped by a Debian package. A number of license texts are not themselves licensed under DFSG-free terms. And Debian promises to remain 100 % free, see [SC] #1. Any content of a Debian package (in main) must be free according to the DFSG. [SC]: <https://www.debian.org/social_contract> License texts are usually [considered] the sole exception, but I think the exception only applies when the license text is included in the package *for the sole purpose* of documenting the legal terms under which some part of the package is released. I don't think the exception may also apply when the license text is the *actual payload* of the package (for instance, a package shipping the text for CC-by-nc-nd-v1.0, when nothing in the package itself is released under that license). [considered]: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00299.html> -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpmUAUFx6wpi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
