r38 - /web/deps/dep5.mdwn
plessy at users.alioth.debian.org
plessy at users.alioth.debian.org
Wed Apr 1 23:49:28 UTC 2009
Author: plessy
Date: Wed Apr 1 23:49:28 2009
New Revision: 38
URL: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/?sc=1&rev=38
Log:
Sync with bzr repository rev. 18, probably not using it anymore.
revno: 18
Unbranding.
revno: 17
Slimming down…
- Suppression of the 'Format' field.
- The 'Copyright' field is free form, and the copyright symbol was removed
from the examples.
- Licence "keywords" are renamed "short names".
- Exemption are signalled in english, not with a "BY" syntax.
- I simplified the table of licences. I can add URLs back later when it is
time for polishing.
- BSD licenses are referred by their name. The "original BSD" issue is not
a problem since the relicensing has retro-active effect. I think that we
can use the same keyword for the 4- and 3- clause version.
- All of this was the kiss of death for the EBNF, so I removed it, and
the recommendations for clear copyrighting as well.
revno: 16
Replaced pipes and commas by `or`s and `and`s.
revno: 15
Added Simon as a driver.
Modified:
web/deps/dep5.mdwn
Modified: web/deps/dep5.mdwn
URL: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=38&op=diff
==============================================================================
--- web/deps/dep5.mdwn (original)
+++ web/deps/dep5.mdwn Wed Apr 1 23:49:28 2009
@@ -1,84 +1,80 @@
-[[!meta title="DEP-5: Machine-readable debian/copyright"]]
-
- Title: Machine-readable debian/copyright
+[[!meta title="DEP-5: Machine-readable license and copyright summary"]]
+
+ Title: Machine-readable license and copyright summary
DEP: 5
State: DRAFT
Date: 2009-03-22
- Drivers: Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org>, Charles Plessy <plessy at debian.org>, Noah Slater <nslater at tumbolia.org>
+ Drivers: Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org>, Charles Plessy <plessy at debian.org>, Noah Slater <nslater at tumbolia.org>, Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>
URL: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
Abstract:
- Establish a standard, machine-readable format for debian/copyright
- files within packages, to facilitate automated checking and
- reporting of licenses for packages and sets of packages.
+ Establish a standard, machine-readable format for license and
+ copyright summary files within software source and binary
+ distribution media, to facilitate automated checking and reporting
+ of licenses for directly distributed or packaged programs.
[[!toc ]]
+
# Introduction
-This is a proposal to make `debian/copyright` machine-interpretable.
-This file is one of the most important files in Debian packaging, yet
-its existing format is vague and varies tremendously across packages,
-making it difficult to automatically parse.
-
-This is not a proposal to change the policy in the short term.
+This is a proposal to make machine-interpretable copyright and license
+summaries. This is particularly an issue in the case of free software
+distributions, in which different works with different licenses are combined.
+This document proposes a simple format for summarising license terms and
+copyrights, in original upstream programs and in their packaged version. This
+tool will make the task easier for users to select a program according to their
+licensing preferences, and for the developpers of software distributions to
+ensure that only compatible works are combined.
+
# Rationale
-The diversity of free software licenses means that Debian needs to care
-not only about the freeness of a given work, but also its license's
-compatibility with the other parts of Debian it uses.
+The diversity of free software licenses means that developpers, users and
+distributors needs to care not only about the freeness of a given work, but
+also its license's compatibility with the other works it uses.
The arrival of the GPL version 3, its incompatibility with version 2,
-and our inability to spot the software where the incompatibility might
+and the difficulty to spot the software where the incompatibility might
be problematic is one prominent occurrence of this limitation.
-There are earlier precedents, also. One is the GPL/OpenSSL
-incompatibility. Apart from grepping `debian/copyright`, which is
-prone to numerous false positives (packaging under the GPL but software
-under another license) or negatives (GPL software but with an "OpenSSL
-special exception" dual licensing form), there is no reliable way to
-know which software in Debian might be problematic.
-
-And there is more to come. There are issues with shipping GPLv2-only
-software with a CDDL operating system such as Nexenta. The GPL version 3
-solves this issue, but not all GPL software can switch to it and we have
-no way to know how much of Debian should be stripped from such a system.
-
-A user might want to have a way to avoid software with certain licenses
-they have a problem with, even if the licenses are DFSG-free. For
-example, the Affero GPL.
+There are earlier precedents, also. One is the GPL/OpenSSL incompatibility.
+Apart from semi-mechanised inspection, like grepping the sources or free-form
+license summaries, which is prone to numerous false positives (packaging under
+the GPL but software under another license) or negatives (GPL software but with
+an "OpenSSL special exception" dual licensing form), there is no reliable way
+to know which software in binary Linux distributions might be problematic.
+
+And there is more to come. There are issues with shipping GPLv2-only software
+with a CDDL operating system such as Nexenta. The GPL version 3 solves this
+issue, but not all GPL software can switch to it and we have no way to know how
+many programs should be stripped from such a system.
+
+Lastly, a user might want to have a way to avoid software with certain licenses
+that do not fit their work procedures or their philosophy, even if the licenses
+are recoginsed by many as free. For example, the Affero GPL.
+
# Compatibility and Human-Readability
+
The file must be encoded as UTF-8 and strictly formatted as a superset
of RFC2822 including significant newlines. Free-form text is not
allowed.
-The `debian/copyright` file must be machine-interpretable, yet
-human-readable, while communicating all mandated upstream information,
-copyright notices and licensing details.
-
For the sake of human-readability this proposal avoids any complex field
names or syntax rules.
+
# Implementation
## Sections
### Header Section (Once)
- * **`Format`**
- * Required
- * URI of the format specification, such as:
- * http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=REVISION
- * Note that the unwieldy length of the URL should be solved in
-future by hosting the specification at a shorter URL (including the
-specification version).
-
* **`Name`**
* Optional
* Single line (in most cases a single word), containing the name of the software.
* **`Maintainer`**
* Optional
- * Line(s) of RFC2822 address or URIs or free text, containing the preferred address(es) to reach current upstream maintainer(s).
+ * Line(s) of RFC2822 address or URIs or free text, containing the preferred address(es) to reach current maintainer(s) of the distributed software.
* **`Source`**
* Optional
@@ -91,12 +87,10 @@
Examples:
- Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=19
Name: SOFTware
Maintainer: John Doe <john.doe at example.com>
Source: http://www.example.com/software/project
- Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=19
Name: xyz
Maintainer: Jane Smith <jane.smith at example.com>
Source: http://www.example.com/gitwww
@@ -113,32 +107,32 @@
* **`Copyright`**
* Optional
* Suggested name: **`Copyright`**
- * one or more valid copyright statement(s) that apply to the files matched by the above pattern. Please refer to the Appendix on copyright statements.
- * Example Format: © 2008, John Q. Holder <john.holder at example.org>
+ * one or more free-form copyright statement(s) that apply to the files matched by the above pattern.
+ * Example Format: 2008, John Q. Holder <john.holder at example.org>
* **`License`**
* Licensing terms for the files listed in the previous **`Files`** field
- * First line: licence name(s) in abbreviated format (see *Keywords* section). If empty, it is given the default value 'other'
- * Remaining lines: either copy the full text of the license(s), indicate a link to it (or them), or leave this part empty for using standalone **`License`** section(s) that matches the license keyword(s) (see the *Standalone License Section* section).
+ * First line: licence name(s) in abbreviated format (see *Short names* section). If empty, it is given the default value 'other'
+ * Remaining lines: either copy the full text of the license(s), indicate a link to it (or them), or leave this part empty for using standalone **`License`** section(s) that matches the license short name(s) (see the *Standalone License Section* section).
* If the files have no copyright holders nor licence because they are in the Public Domain, the **`License`** field is used to indicate this fact.
Example:
Files: *
- Copyright: © 2008, John Doe <john.doe at example.com>
- © 2007, Jane Smith <jane.smith at example.com>
+ Copyright: 2008, John Doe <john.doe at example.com>
+ 2007, Jane Smith <jane.smith at example.com>
License: PSF-2
[LICENSE TEXT]
### Standalone License Section
-Where a set of files are dual (tri, etc) licensed, or when the same licence occurs multiple times, you can use a single line **`License`** field and standlone **`License`** fields to expand the license keywords.
+Where a set of files are dual (tri, etc) licensed, or when the same licence occurs multiple times, you can use a single line **`License`** field and standlone **`License`** fields to expand the license short names.
Example 1 (tri-licensed files).
Files: src/js/editline/*
- Copyright: © 1993, John Doe
- © 1993, Joe Average
- License: MPL-1.1 | GPL-2 | LGPL-2.1
+ Copyright: 1993, John Doe
+ 1993, Joe Average
+ License: MPL-1.1 or GPL-2 or LGPL-2.1
License: MPL-1.1
[LICENSE TEXT]
@@ -153,12 +147,12 @@
Example 2 (recurrent license).
Files: src/js/editline/*
- Copyright: © 1993, John Doe
- © 1993, Joe Average
+ Copyright: 1993, John Doe
+ 1993, Joe Average
License: MPL-1.1
Files: src/js/fdlibm/*
- Copyright: © 1993, J-Random Comporation
+ Copyright: 1993, J-Random Comporation
License: MPL-1.1
License: MPL-1.1
@@ -171,8 +165,7 @@
## Fields Detail
### Files
#### Format
-The value of the **`Files`** field should be a list of comma-separated
-values:
+The **`Files`** field contains a list of comma-separated patterns
Files: foo.c, bar.*, baz.[ch]
@@ -215,225 +208,86 @@
order from most general (e.g. `Files: *`) first, through to most
specific. In the following example, the file `getopt.c` matches both
`Files: *` and `Files: getopt.*`; only the last match counts, so
-the file `getopt.c` has the license declaration `License: BSD-C2`.
+the file `getopt.c` has the license declaration `License: BSD`.
Files: *
- Copyright: © 2003-2005, John Doe <jdoe at xample.com>
+ Copyright: 2003-2005, John Doe <jdoe at xample.com>
License: [the main work's license]
[LICENSE TEXT]
Files: getopt.*
- Copyright: © 2000, The Corporation Foundation, Inc.
- License: BSD-C2
+ Copyright: 2000, The Corporation Foundation, Inc.
+ License: BSD
[LICENSE TEXT]
### License
-#### Keywords
-The "`License`" field, to be machine-parseable, should not contain
-arbitrary values. There needs to be a list of accepted keywords which
-have a very specific, unambiguous meaning. The convention for license
-keywords is `XYZ` for a license with only one version, and `XYZ-n` for
-sequential version *n* of the XYZ license, where `XYZ-1` is
-chronologically earlier than `XYZ-2`.
+#### Short name
+
+The "`License`" field, to be machine-parseable, refers in its first lines to
+frequently used licenses through a list of unambiguous short names. For the
+licenses existing in multiple versions, the version number is added, using a
+dash as a separator. If omitted, the lowest version number is implied. When the
+licence permits to use the terms of any later version, the short name is
+finished with a plus sign.
[[!table data="""
**keyword** | **meaning**
-`Apache-2.0` | Apache license, version 2.0 only
-`GPL-2+` | GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your option) any later version
-`GPL-3` | GNU General Public License, version 3 only
-`LGPL-2` | GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2 only
-`LGPL-2+-BY-OpenSSL` | GNU Lesser Public License, version 2 or (at your option) any later and with OpenSSL linkage exception added
-`GFDL-1.2` | GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 only
-`GFDL-1.2+-BY-NIV` | GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or (at your option) any later, with no invariant sections
-`PSF-2` | Python Software License, version 2 only
+`Apache` | Apache license
+`Artistic` | Artistic license
+`BSD` | Berkeley software distribution license
+`NetBSD` | NetBSD Foundation's (TNF) license
+`FreeBSD` | FreeBSD Project license
+`ISC` | Internet Software Consortium's license, sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License
+`CC-BY` | Creative Commons Attribution license
+`CC-BY-SA` | Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license
+`CC-BY-ND` | Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives
+`CC-BY-NC` | Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial
+`CC-BY-NC-SA` | Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
+`CC-BY-NC-ND` | Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives
+`CC0` | Creative Commons Universal waiver
+`CDDL` | Common Development and Distribution License
+`CPL` | IBM Common Public License
+`Eiffel` | The Eiffel Forum License
+`Expat` | The Expat license
+`GPL` | GNU General Public License
+`LGPL` | GNU Lesser General Public License, (GNU Library General Public License for versions lower than 2.1)
+`GFDL` | GNU Free Documentation License
+`LPPL` | LaTeX Project Public License
+`MPL` | Mozilla Public License
+`Perl` | Perl license (equates to "GPL-1+ or Artistic-1
+`PHP` | PHP license
+`PSF` | Python Software Foundation license
+`QPL` | Q Public License
+`W3C-Software` | W3C Software License
+`ZLIB` | zlib/libpng license
+`Zope` | Zope Public License
`other` | Any other custom license. *License notice text must be copied verbatim.*
"""]]
-*** Fixme: restore a long list of licenses***
-
-Consult the FSF's page for
-[GPL
-compatibility](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#GPLCompatibleLicenses)
-of particular licenses.
-
-The extra plus-sign in `<License version>["+"]` means that the
-License contains clauses similar to GPL's "version N or (at your option)
-any later version".
-
-The GPL "`-Font`" clarification refers to the text added to the
+Exemptions and clarifications are signalled in plain text, by "with
+''keywords'' exemption". This document provides a list of keywords that refer
+to the most frequent exemptions.
+
+The GPL "`Font`" clarification refers to the text added to the
license notice of each file as specified at [How does the GPL apply to
fonts?](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException). The
text needed is:
-> ...
-
-> As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font,
-> and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the
-> document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting document to
-> be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not
-> however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered
-> by the GNU General Public License. If you modify this font, you may
-> extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not
-> obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception
-> statement from your version.
-
-The GPL "`-OpenSSL`" clarification gives permission in cases where GPL
-code is linked with OpenSSL library. For more information, see ["The
-OpenSSL License and The
-GPL"](http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html) by Mark
-McLoughlin and the message ["middleman software license conflicts with
-OpenSSL"](http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html)
-by Mark McLoughlin on the `debian-legal` mailing list. Any GPL source
-that uses OpenSSL and does not contain an OpenSSL exception notice is
-[REJECTED](http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html) by the Debian
-FTP administrators. The license notice needs to include an exception
-such as the following to qualify for `BY-OpenSSL` which allows linking
-with OpenSSL:
-
-> ...
-
-> In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give
-> permission to link the code of portions of this program with the
-> OpenSSL library under certain conditions as described in each
-> individual source file, and distribute linked combinations including
-> the two.
-
-> You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all
-> of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify file(s) with this
-> exception, you may extend this exception to your version of the
-> file(s), but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do
-> so, delete this exception statement from your version. If you delete
-> this exception statement from all source files in the program, then
-> also delete it here.
-
-
-**<License keyword BSD>**
-
-*Proposal 1:*
-
-Comment: These licenses have no recognised version number. Perhaps the
-abbreviation should deliberately show the number of clauses in a way
-that doesn't indicate a version number: BSD-C<N>. But that still sounds
-vaguely like a version number; it still suggests sequence in the
-different versions that doesn't actually match the true chronology; it
-also fails to indicate *which* clauses are included. —BenFinney
-2008-10-16
-
-[[!table data="""
-keyword | GPL compatible | meaning
-`BSD-C2` | Yes | Two-clause BSD license
-`BSD-C3` | Yes | Three-clause BSD license, with no-endorsement clause, as seen in `/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD`
-`BSD-C4` |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No | Four-clause BSD license, with no-endorsement clause and advertising clause; GPL-incompatible (need exact text)
-"""]]
-
-*Proposal 2:*
-
-In the absence of a clear succession of differently-numbered consecutive
-versions of a license text, my proposal is: we could come up with
-abbreviations similar to those used for indicating active clauses in the
-Creative Commons licenses. This way, no false impression of
-chronological sequence is implied, and the abbreviation provides a
-mnemonic for what the terms of the license actually are, not just the
-number of clauses in them. -- BenFinney 2008-10-15
-
-[[!table data="""
- |
-`BSD-BY-LC` | forms requiring only the inclusion of copyright notice and condition
-`BSD-BY-LC-NE` | plus “no endorsement without permissionâ€
-`BSD-BY-LC-NE-AD` | plus “advertising requiredâ€
-"""]]
-
-*Proposal 3:*
-
-While mnemonics like `LC,NE,AD` may sound practical (where does LC
-abbreviation come from?), in BSD case I find them lacking wider
-recognition. The BSD licenses have been examined by FSF, so perhaps we
-could use names and definitions used at [License
-list](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#FreeBSD)
-—JariAalto
-
-[[!table data="""
-keyword | GPL compatible | meaning
-[BSD](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#OriginalBSD) |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No | Also known as the “[Original 4-clause BSD license](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php)â€. Contains the “obnoxious BSD advertising clauseâ€.
-[ModifiedBSD](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD) | Yes | This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license.
-[FreeBSD](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#FreeBSD) | Yes | Also known as the “[2-clause BSD license](http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html)â€. Original BSD license with the advertising clause and another clause removed. This is safe, simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license.
-[OpenBSD](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ISC) | Yes | Also known as the "[ISC License](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt)". This license does have an unfortunate wording choice.
-[ClearBSD](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#clearbsd) | Yes | Based on the modified BSD license, and adds a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses.
-"""]]
-
-**<License keyword well known>**
-
-The basis of these keywords should be wide recognition. Something based
-on lists like [Open Source Initiative: Licenses by
-Name](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical),
-[Wikipedia: List of FSF approved software
-licences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences),
-and [FSF: Various Licenses and Comments about
-Them](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
-
-This list does not yet represent all widely used licenses. Good
-candidates are those listed in the FSF or OSI pages mentioned above. The
-column "Version needed" means that the license keyword should always be
-accompanied by a version number. E.g., plain keyword `Artistic` is to
-be avoided in favor of the more explicit `Artistic-2` keyword.
-
-The *GPL compatible* field indicates compatibility by license version.
-E.g., in the case of Apache, the "2.0+ (v3)" means that Apache license
-version 2.0 was the first GPL v3 compatible license. The Apache licenses
-are not GPL v2 compatible. In the case of the CPL, the "No 1.0" means
-that license version 1.0 is GPL incompatible; no information about other
-versions is known. If the field is linked to somewhere else, it means
-that the opinion has not been verified by the FSF, but an external
-source is being cited.
+The GPL "`OpenSSL`" clarification gives permission to linked code with OpenSSL library, which contains GPL-incompatible clauses.
+
[[!table data="""
**keyword** | **Version needed?** | **GPL compatible** | **meaning**
-`Apache` | Yes | 2.0+ (v3) | Apache license. For versions, consult the [Apache Software Foundation](http://www.apache.org/licenses/).
-`Artistic` | Yes | 2.0+ (v2+) | The Perl Artistic license. For versions, consult the [Perl Foundation](http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?action=revision_list;page_name=artistic_license)
-`CDDL` | Yes |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No | Common Development and Distribution License, For verions, consult [Sun Microsystems](http://www.sun.com/cddl/). Based on MPL 1.1.
-`Eiffel` | Yes | [2+](http://www.eiffel-nice.org/license/) | The Eiffel Forum License. For versions, consult the [Open Source Initiative](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eiffel.html)
-`CPL` | Yes |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No 1.0 | For versions, consult the [IBM Common Public License (CPL) Frequently asked questions](http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html). See also [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Public_License)
-`ISC` |<bgcolor="#ffebbb"> No | Yes | The Internet Software Consortium's [“ISC licenseâ€](http://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt). Sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License
-`MPL` | Yes |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No | Mozilla Public License. For versions, consult [Mozilla.org](http://www.mozilla.org/MPL)
-`PSF` | Yes |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No 1.6b1-2.1 | For versions, consult the [Python Software Foundation](http://www.python.org/psf/license/)
-`W3C-Software` | Yes (YYYYMMDD) | Yes | The W3C Software License. For more information, consult the [W3C Intellectual Rights FAQ](http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620S) and the [20021231 W3C Software notice and license](http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231)
-`ZLIB` |<bgcolor="#ffebbb"> No | Yes | The [zlib/libpng license](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php)
-`Zope` | Yes | 2.0, 2.1 | Zope Public License. For versions, consult [Zope.org](http://www.zope.org/Resources/License/)
-"""]]
-
-**Problematic Licenses**
-
-[[!table data="""
-**keyword** | **Version needed?** | **GPL compatible** | **meaning**
-`CC` | Yes |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No | [Creative Commons Attribution License](http://creativecommons.org/). You should not upload anything prior 3.x. Read the [Debian Creative Commons Workgroup report](http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report) by Evan Prodromou. CC licenses can often require repackaging; CC-licensed material that does not meet the DFSG has to be removed. This license is neither GPL nor GFDL compatible.
`MIT` |<bgcolor="#ffebbb"> No | | Several variants of the MIT license exist: (1) the standard version with three paragraphs (blanket permission, keep this notice, NO WARRANTY), (2) a version with a no-endorsement clause, and (3) other versions with slight wording differences. *License notice text needs to be copied verbatim.*
`PD` |<bgcolor="#ffebbb"> No | | Being in the public domain is not a license. See Linux journal article ["Why the Public Domain Isn't a License"](http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225) by Lawrence Rosen. *License notice text needs to be copied verbatim*
-`PHP` | Yes |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No 3.01 | For versions, consult [PHP license](http://www.php.net/license). The PHP license may cause Debian FTP admin staff to [REJECT](http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html) the package. The PHP license was designed for code contibuted to the PHP language itself and not for developing PHP Web applications. It might be a good idea to contact the author with suggestion to change to the LGPL or BSD license. See Debian mailing list threads [1](http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html), [2](http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/threads.html#00128), [3](http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/threads.html#00222), [4](http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/02/threads.html#00024), [5](http://lists.debian.org/debian-webapps/2006/04/threads.html#00008).
-`QPL` | Yes |<bgcolor="#ffcccc"> No 1.0 | For versions, consult [Trolltech](http://doc.trolltech.com). This is an obsolete license for Qt. Suggest the author of the sources to study [http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/qpl.html](http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/qpl.html).
-"""]]
-
-**License keyword "other"**
-
-Examples of licenses not listed:
-[OSI](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical),
-[FSF](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html). Should use
-License keyword `other`. The license notice is copied verbatim.
-
-[[!table data="""
-License |
-Erlang Public License
-The [Expat license](http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt). This license is equivalent to what many people mean by "the MIT license" or "the MIT/X11 license", but those names are ambiguous as there are multiple incompatible versions of an "MIT/X11 license" in the wild. For clarity, it is better to refer to "the Expat license" as that name refers only to these license terms.
-The LaTeX Project Public License. For versions, consult the [Latex project](http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/). GPL-incompatible. Note that works under any version of the License often have additional restrictions attached; check carefully.
-"""]]
#### Syntax
License names are case-insensitive.
-The pipe character "|"
-is used when the user chan chose between different licenses.
-The comma "," is used for code whose use must comply with the terms of
-multiple licenses.
+In case of multi-licensing, the license short names are separated by `or` for
+code where the user can chose between different licenses, and by `and` for code
+whose use must comply with the terms of multiple licenses.
For instance, this is a simple, "GPL version 2 or later" field:
@@ -441,22 +295,29 @@
This is a dual-licensed GPL/Artistic work such as Perl:
- License: GPL-2+ | Artistic-2.0
+ License: GPL-2+ or Artistic-2.0
This is for a file that has both GPL and classic BSD code in it:
- License: GPL-2+, BSD-C2
-
-And this is for a file that has Perl code and classic BSD code in it:
-
- License: GPL-2+ | Artistic-2.0, BSD-C3
+ License: GPL-2+ and BSD-C2
+
+For the most complex cases, the comma is used to disambiguate the priority of
+`or`s and `and`s: `and` has the priority over `or`, unless preceded by a comma.
+For instance:
+
+ `A or B and C` means `A or (B and C)`.
+ `A or B, and C` means `(A or B), and C`.
+
+This is for a file that has Perl code and classic BSD code in it:
+
+ License: GPL-2+ or Artistic-2.0, and BSD-C3
A GPL-2+ work with the OpenSSL exception is in effect a dual-licensed
work that can be redistributed either under the GPL-2+, or under the
GPL-2+ with the OpenSSL exception. It is thus expressed as
-`GPL-2+-BY-OpenSSL`:
-
- License: GPL-2+-BY-OpenSSL
+`GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exemption`:
+
+ License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exemption
In addition, as a special exception, the author of this
program gives permission to link the code of its
release with the OpenSSL project's "OpenSSL" library (or
@@ -480,66 +341,64 @@
#### Simple
A possible `copyright` file for the program 'X Solitaire' distributed in the Debian source package `xsol`:
- Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=19
Name: X Solitaire
Source: ftp://ftp.example.com/pub/games
- Copyright: © 1998, John Doe <jdoe at example.com>
+ Copyright: 1998, John Doe <jdoe at example.com>
License: GPL-2+
On Debian systems the full text of the GNU General Public
- License can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'
+ License can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2'
file.
Files: debian/*
- Copyright: © 1998, Jane Smith <jsmith at example.net>
+ Copyright: 1998, Jane Smith <jsmith at example.net>
License:
[LICENSE TEXT]
#### Complex
A possible `copyright` file for the program 'Planet Venus', distributed in the Debian source package `planet-venus`:
- Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=19
Name: Planet Venus
Maintainer: John Doe <jdoe at example.com>
Source: http://www.example.com/code/venus
- Copyright: © 2008, John Doe <jdoe at example.com>
- © 2007, Jane Smith <jsmith at example.org>
- © 2007, Joe Average <joe at example.org>
- © 2007, J. Random User <jr at users.example.com>
+ Copyright: 2008, John Doe <jdoe at example.com>
+ 2007, Jane Smith <jsmith at example.org>
+ 2007, Joe Average <joe at example.org>
+ 2007, J. Random User <jr at users.example.com>
License: PSF-2
[LICENSE TEXT]
Files: debian/*
- Copyright: © 2008, Dan Developer <dan at debian.example.com>
- License: GAP
+ Copyright: 2008, Dan Developer <dan at debian.example.com>
+ License:
Copying and distribution of this package, with or without
modification, are permitted in any medium without royalty
provided the copyright notice and this notice are
preserved.
Files: debian/patches/theme-diveintomark.patch
- Copyright: © 2008, Joe Hacker <hack at example.org>
+ Copyright: 2008, Joe Hacker <hack at example.org>
License: GPL-2+
[LICENSE TEXT]
Files: planet/vendor/compat_logging/*
- Copyright: © 2002, Mark Smith <msmith at example.org>
+ Copyright: 2002, Mark Smith <msmith at example.org>
License: MIT
[LICENSE TEXT]
Files: planet/vendor/httplib2/*
- Copyright: © 2006, John Brown <brown at example.org>
+ Copyright: 2006, John Brown <brown at example.org>
License:
Unspecified MIT style license.
Files: planet/vendor/feedparser.py
- Copyright: © 2007, Mike Smith <mike at example.org>
+ Copyright: 2007, Mike Smith <mike at example.org>
License: PSF-2
[LICENSE TEXT]
Files: planet/vendor/htmltmpl.py
- Copyright: © 2004, Thomas Brown <coder at example.org>
+ Copyright: 2004, Thomas Brown <coder at example.org>
License: GPL-2+
On Debian systems the full text of the GNU General Public
License can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'
@@ -548,13 +407,22 @@
## Appendix: Note about the use of this format in Debian:
+The Debian Policy (§12.5) demands that each packages is accompanied by a file,
+`debian/copyright` in source packages and `/usr/share/doc/package/copyright` in
+binary packages, that contains a verbatim copy of its copyright and
+distribution license. In addition, it requires that copyrights must be
+extractable by mechanical means. This proposal for machine-readable copyright
+and license summary files has been crafted for Debian's use, but it is our hope
+that other software distributions, as well as upstream developpers will adopt
+it, so that review efforts can be easily reproduced and shared.
+
+The copyright of the Debian packaging and the history of package maintainers is
+simply indicated in a **`Files: debian/*`** section.
+
In the case packages in the contrib or non-free sections of the Debian archive,
the **`Disclaimer`** field can be used for explaining that the contrib or
non-free package is not part of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution and briefly
explain why (as per Policy §12.5).
-
-The copyright of the Debian packaging and the history of package maintainers is
-simply indicated in a **`Files: debian/*`** section.
The Policy section §12.5 demands that packages distributed in the ''non-free''
and ''contrib'' sections of the Debian archive carry a disclaimer in
@@ -568,62 +436,3 @@
It is proposed to use an extra field in the header, with name
**`X-Autobuild`**, that would contain `yes` in the first line and the
explanation in the others.
-
-## Appendix: Valid copyright statements:
-
- * A valid copyright statement, as per the UCC, MUST include all of the following:
- * One of "Copyright", "Copr.", or "©". Note that an approximation
-like "(c)" is explicitly *not* acceptable; it never had legal standing
-and is too ambiguous.
- * The year(s) of publication of the work. Years SHOULD be full
-four-digit years, either separately or a dash-separated range of
-four-digit years.
- * The specific identifying name of the copyright holder. Real names
-of people or legal entities SHOULD be used where available instead of
-nicknames or "screen names". Optional contact information or URI is
-recommended.
- Maintainers MAY reformat copyright statements for clarity or
-consistency as long as the legal meaning is not changed. For more
-information study the [GPL
-Howto](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html).
-
-## Appendix: EBNF grammar for license names.
-
-The abbreviated license names were made compatible with the following [EBNF
-grammar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Backus–Naur_form):
-
- License ::= <keyword>[<version>]["BY" {N* <clarification>}]
- <keyword> ::=
- <License keyword FSF>
- | <License keyword BSD>
- | <License keyword well known>
- | "other"
- <License keyword FSF> ::=
- GPL | LGPL | AGPL | GFDL
- <License keyword BSD> ::=
- ... to be decided, see table below for proposals.
- <License keyword well known> ::=
- ... to be decided, see table below for proposals.
- <version> ::= <License version>["+"]
- <License version> ::= <Numeric version> | <Other version>
- <Numeric version> ::= [0-9.]+
- <Other version> ::= <Vendor's version> | <publication date>
- <Vendor's version> ::= string (* anything: "A", "B", "public" *)
- <publication date> ::= YYYYMMDD
- <clarification> ::=
- <clarification GPL>
- | <clarification GFDL>
- | <clarification CC>
- | <clarification other>
- <clarification GPL> ::=
- "-CC" (* With Creative Commons' metadata and Commons Deed added to GPL *)
- "-OpenSSL" (* With openSSL exception added *)
- "-Font" (* With font exception added *)
- <clarification GFDL> ::=
- "-NIV" (* With no invariant sections *)
- "-CC" (* With Creative Commons' metadata and Commons Deed added to GFDL *)
- <clarification CC> ::= (* Creative Commons License variants *)
- "-NC" (* No Commercial *)
- "-ND" (* No Derivative Works *)
- "-SA" (* Share Alike *)
- <clarification other> ::= Other list of license specific keywords that clarify optional parts included or exluded.
More information about the dep-commits
mailing list