New license request: Linux-man-pages-1-para [SPDX-Online-Tools] #1955
Comments
|
Related Fedora issue: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/207 |
|
Text of license from URL, adding here for convenience: Permission is granted to distribute possibly modified copies of this page provided the header is included verbatim, and in case of nontrivial modification author and date of the modification is added to the header. |
|
I'm +1 to add this to the list, as a simple, historical license which appears to be broadly permissive / meet the OSI definition. I'm not sure what to use for the name and identifier. I'm inclined not to use "one-para" or "One Paragraph" since there are likely other man pages that also have just one paragraph. But I take your point about VERBATIM_ONE_PARA being the tag used at https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages/blob/ae6b221882ce71ba82fcdbe02419a225111502f0/man2/getcpu.2#L3. Open to others' thoughts on this as well! |
License Inclusion DecisionDecision:
NameLinux man-pages One Paragraph License IDLinux-man-pages-one-para XML markupnone Notes:none Next stepsIf the license has been accepted, please follow the accepted-license process to create the PR. |
|
Should not even be looking at man7 pages except as possible examples as they are years outdated compared to the current Linux kernel.org pages (or the bleeding edge maintainer pages which feed that). |
|
Please reopen this issue. The PR shouldn't have been merged. Here goes some review:
For consistency with Linux-man-pages-copyleft (https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-man-pages-copyleft.html),
Should be
Author is unknown. I'm the steward, as maintainer of the Linux man-pages.
As @BrianInglis pointed out, that mirror is just a mirror (if you follow the link, it says so several times), and is outdated by years.
Same here: |
fixes #1955 updates to name and id as per Signed-off-by: Jilayne Lovejoy
|
@alejandro-colomar - thanks for having a look! and thanks @BrianInglis for making the connection. I'm fine to update the name and ID as per your suggestion since you are the maintainer. Please see #1978 @adobes1 - this is one of those rare situations where there is a change in the id of a merged license, please note for your Fedora package review and sorry for any inconvenience! |
Cheers!
I changed my mind yesterday after learning about yet another license request. I'll suggest that we use -1-para instead of -one-para, since there's also a -2-para.
Did you release already to the website? We already modified the Linux-man-pages-copyleft after merged but before release, so I expect no problems there, except maybe if Fedora already started using it before the release, but I guess they didn't. Thanks! |
|
re: timing on release - we have not pushed 3.21 yet and aim to do so in a week or so. Note that once a release is finalized we do NOT change ids lightly and try to avoid doing so. As it is, it's not optimal that we are having this name debate after the license was merged, but since it's before the release it's okay-ish. In any case, spending lots of time on naming of one license does take time from getting other work done - and I know, naming is hard! But we do need to be decisive and move on ;) |
|
If dropping suffixes -1-para/-2-para as less meaningful, maybe suffix this one something like -verbatim, as that is understood, and we have meaningful names? |
|
@alejandro-colomar - please confirm that your last suggestion is good to go: |
|
On 6/8/23 06:46, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
@alejandro-colomar - please confirm that your last suggestion is good to go:
Id = `Linux-man-pages-copyleft-1-para`
name = "Linux man-pages Copyleft (1 paragraph)"
You probably know more about copyleft/right than I do. I'll leave
the consideration of if this license should carry "copyleft" in the
name or if it's less of a copyleft than Linux-man-pages-copyleft
up to you.
<#1978 (comment)>
For consistency with BSD-N-Clause and others, I suggest using -1-
instead of -one-. Since no better suggestion has been made, -1-para
makes sense to me.
Thanks,
Alex
…--
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
|
|
Thanks @alejandro-colomar - as for "copyleft" or not - after closer inspection of all these variants, it's the second paragraph that contains the copyleft-like obligation, so it probably makes sense to NOT use "copyleft" in this one since it omits the second paragraph that would make it FYI @swinslow and @richardfontana (not sure we got to this one on the call today) |
jlovejoy
changed the title
|
On 6/8/23 19:25, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Thanks @alejandro-colomar - as for "copyleft" or not - after closer inspection of all these variants, it's the second paragraph that contains the copyleft-like obligation, so it probably makes sense to NOT use "copyleft" in this one since it omits the second paragraph
Agree.
that would make it `Linux-man-pages-1-para`
Sounds good. :)
Acked-by: Alejandro Colomar ***@***.***>
…
FYI @swinslow and @richardfontana (not sure we got to this one on the call today)
--
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
|
1. License Name: Linux man-pages One Paragraph
2. Short identifier: Linux-man-pages-one-para
3. License Author or steward: Unknown
4. Comments: This license appears in several Linux man-pages under the name of VERBATIM_ONE_PARA
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/231
6. URL(s): https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages/blob/master/man2/getcpu.2#L4-L7
7. OSI Status: Unknown
8. Example Projects: https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: