X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Received: from mail.wilcox-tech.com (mail.wilcox-tech.com [45.32.83.9]) by lists.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9D95C4E2F for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:41:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 19919 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2018 20:41:21 -0000 Received: from 107-131-85-28.lightspeed.tulsok.sbcglobal.net (HELO ?192.168.1.237?) (awilcox@wilcox-tech.com@107.131.85.28) by mail.wilcox-tech.com with ESMTPA; 31 Jan 2018 20:41:21 -0000 Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] RFC: Fixing license field in APKBUILDs (or a bit more) To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org References: <1614404acdb.edd44d4135179.3833405768989653606@zoho.com> <20180131194540.GA21821@alpine.my.domain> From: "A. Wilcox" Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?Ad=c3=a9lie_Linux?= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:41:27 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180131194540.GA21821@alpine.my.domain> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kaIwWXTTEtbaRWBSGkNcnIEWhsOxQJRD1" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --kaIwWXTTEtbaRWBSGkNcnIEWhsOxQJRD1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="C73hrDXfq2cbxxo5WxrH6F1vXPvkQgIBC"; protected-headers="v1" From: "A. Wilcox" To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] RFC: Fixing license field in APKBUILDs (or a bit more) References: <1614404acdb.edd44d4135179.3833405768989653606@zoho.com> <20180131194540.GA21821@alpine.my.domain> In-Reply-To: <20180131194540.GA21821@alpine.my.domain> --C73hrDXfq2cbxxo5WxrH6F1vXPvkQgIBC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/31/18 13:45, C=E1g wrote: > William Pitcock wrote: > =20 >> After discussing with jirutka, we came to the conclusion that SPDX 2 >> shorthand identifiers are fine as long as they are not vague. For >> example "GPL-2.0+" is equally valid to "GPL-2.0-or-later". This >> resolves the main gripe that Adelie has with SPDX 3. >=20 > Dear, >=20 > I've just worked with the sc package that happens to be in the public > domain. SPDX doesn't mention how to spell it. Should it be "public > domain", "Public Domain", "Public-Domain" or something else? >=20 > Thanks >=20 Preface: IANAL, but I have been studying open source legal matters for over a decade. sc is, in my not-professional but fairly-well-educated opinion, not legally packagable. - There is no license specified. None of the source files actually state a license. While the README states "This is a much modified version of the public domain spread sheet sc", it does *not* state that this distribution is still in the public domain. - Further, the ending of the README: > Since some people are wary of using a program that has no guarantee, > I've decided to provide the following guarantee: > > It is a well-known fact that any non-trivial program has bugs. If > you haven't found them, you just haven't stumbled upon the proper > combinations of actions that will cause the bugs to manifest them- > selves. Since sc stands for "Spreadsheet Calculator", and since a > spreadsheet calculator is by definition a non-trivial program, sc is > guaranteed to have bugs. is not a real license, and does not specify what the user can and cannot do with the program. It is simply a tongue-in-cheek guarantee that there are bugs. In short, there is no actual license for this software, and it has not been dedicated to the public domain. Maybe you can contact upstream and ask them to use either: * CC-0 (a fairly legal public domain dedication) * Unlicense (another fairly legal public domain dedication, specific to software) * WTFPL (fits with the tongue-in-cheek manner of the guarantee) Let me also just make everyone aware that not all jurisdictions recognise a public domain as even existing, which is why a simple statement is not enough. CC-0 and Unlicense (and to a point, WTFPL) make explicit what you can do with the software even if your jurisdiction does not recognise PD. Best, --arw --=20 A. Wilcox (awilfox) Project Lead, Ad=E9lie Linux http://adelielinux.org --C73hrDXfq2cbxxo5WxrH6F1vXPvkQgIBC-- --kaIwWXTTEtbaRWBSGkNcnIEWhsOxQJRD1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJMBAEBCAA2FiEEjNyWOYPU1SaTSMHHyynLUZIrnRQFAlpyKfcYHGF3aWxmb3hA YWRlbGllbGludXgub3JnAAoJEMspy1GSK50U/ZcQAIU2V88XO5q0fRRRDgJPYCld j+64TEJKnx5K5IpkBIFrjzR9Uyev4rfe8CaRyatyLJMgJIhmLvT7DDfkIR5QDjvt TbUFEqXW3ToYbUoKQZvptfx+o/fFlXHYJ8cOB1KOokXkvIGVdzpFsJTBEppdxyrR UhgFAgHVeUtaLOAiePpGi7rp/wQToSbPpzRj0/tt+IpIe80bakjL/9xD5RPyjHMg rzRRUD7ZzsgBTCiHZrJAM8YY4FwzVxC0XzaX8ur3JatnamYdvjd9phOkCpJ1a4G8 udpK9W7OE6ElUO9HKqbze8tmnsJKU8xtutNDdor/u1dHnurprWtowr82GcuZx++d nbem4GbNeg1ANPERxmaVO6HyZserc/5wSIyZ2X5yRPc2Tol5RvtTwCm6kKEZeNMU U6X1z5oq2Z9Ov8csCbDBUqA7RMiSURSdrDcD2PmvuXwohg3FPLfqUoSqIj05hKXK iho6UMbo1wv8Si5PU0zWP2a/6Ehr08rn4IDjIUIT43Hn97HNvNCPvWWCq7qk0hW7 uy6q1zgtKyEbM+hMkOWynvpMaCVZtYStn5GqKb2sjA5XymcR41UZZWBK9sYV/5Bz 7z+8eIPNd6FJP967vDANzokeIDMyJ3mpIfP6O3UtHUOCu618okbNSR+/XUNfyut9 87bJEbYGXzUzRMsh8XON =lQle -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kaIwWXTTEtbaRWBSGkNcnIEWhsOxQJRD1-- --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---