Ben Finney wrote: > Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > > One concern I have with the current DEP5 draft is that the set of > > keywords for common licenses is very NIH. > > Well, that speaks to motives (NIH) that I don't think were present. I > think it's just that the obvious clearing houses for license information > (OSI, FSF) didn't provide a good list of short names so there appeared > to be no option but to create our own.
A passable list of short names can be extracted from the anchor ids in the FSF licensing list with the command: curl -s http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ \ | grep -A1 '<dt><a id' | sed -e 's/<a id="//;s/[<"][^>]*>/ /g' Was that considered? [...] > > Fedora, for example, has an existing list of license keywords that are > > widely deployed, as can be found here: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List > > That page doesn't make clear how the “short name” is intended to be > used, and what ambiguities are or are not acceptable. What assurance is > there that these short names are sufficiently unambiguous, discrete, and > distinct enough on which to found DEP 5 license declarations? I share those concerns, particularly for the "with exceptions" ones. Often with licensing, the devil is in the detail like that. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
