Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal (aside: public domain licenses)

[ng0]

Reading into general licenses we use, I found that simply stating "public 
domain"
is considered "controversial" enough for the FSF to recommend CC0 now. I have
no strong preference over the presented alternatives (CC0, 0BSD, etc) but would
make files which are not just Makefiles state 0BSD. For myself 0BSD seems more
appropriate for what we have and is more to the point, less "intimidating" for
people who don't use license texts on a daily/regular basis.

Compare https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD 
(https://tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license)
with
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode 
(https://tldrlegal.com/license/creative-commons-cc0-1.0-universal)

As neither Trademarks nor Patents apply for the files we put in the public 
domain and our
project, 0BSD seems better because it can be processed easier by humans (which 
also
relates to this thread intention).

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 00:10:57 +0100 (CET), <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:45:52 +0100, Tirifto <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > ng0 píše v So 12. 01. 2019 v 18:43 +0100:
> > > Hi *, and happy new year!
> > 
> > Hello and to you as well!
> > 
> > > Hi *, and happy new year!
> > > 
> > > A while back I've talked to someone about SPDX (
> > > https://spdx.org/about) and the purpose of it.
> > > Since it doesn't add any damage, and it helps humans as well as
> > > programs who need to parse files for copyleft/rights, I want to
> > > discuss how my patch should look like to add this to gnunet core.
> > > I will adjust the rest of our repositories after core is done. It
> > > would be good to adjust Taler repositories as well.
> > > 
> > > You have a good amount of freedom in how to apply spdx.
> > > 
> > > Practical example, pleroma (AGPL3-only software), has this header:
> > > 
> > > # Pleroma: A lightweight social networking server
> > > # Copyright © 2017-2019 Pleroma Authors <https://pleroma.social/>
> > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: AGPL-3.0-only
> > > 
> > > and includes the normal "LICENSE" file in their root.
> > > 
> > > Next example. Linux (https://lwn.net/Articles/739183/) is using a
> > > mechanism which supports the software making use of spdx. If you read
> > > into their current source tree you see that they have a folder
> > > 'LICENSES' which contains license specifications according to their
> > > rules: 
> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.18/process/license-rules.html
> > > 
> > > There are applications to help with the process, but I haven't looked
> > > into them yet.
> > > 
> > > We have a number of options here:
> > > 1. Do as pleroma does. cut down the license part of the header to the
> > > necessary parts.
> > > 2. Add SPDX as an addition to our current header, no removal.
> > > 3. Look more closely into what Linux has done.
> > > 4. Ignore spdx.
> > > 
> > > I'm in favor of 2 and would also go for 1 if people found it
> > > reasonable.
> > 
> > I would like to bring the REUSE Initiative to your attention, which was
> > launched a while back, by Free Software Foundation Europe, to provide a
> > set of practices for including machine-readable licensing information
> > in source code. It's a superset of SPDX, if my understanding's correct.
> > 
> > https://reuse.software/
> > 
> > Not sure how you'll find it, but I thought it was relevant to mention.
> > 
> > Best wishes
> > // Tirifto
> 
> Ah, yes. reuse.software was one of the examples pointed out to me
> in conversation. Thanks for reminding me of it, I forgot to mention it.
> _______________________________________________
> GNUnet-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers