New license request: LDP-1 [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[adobes1]

1. License Name: LDP General Public License v1
2. Short identifier: LDP-1
3. License Author or steward: Unknown, possibly Linux Documentation Project
4. Comments: This license is used in Linux man-pages.
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/232
6. URL(s): http://web.archive.org/web/20210511064817/https://old.calculate-linux.org/packages/licenses/LDP-1
7. OSI Status: Unknown
8. Example Projects: https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages

[adobes1]

Link to related Fedora issue: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/211

[adobes1]

Since this license has been determined to be not-allowed for Fedora, should I close this issue?

[jlovejoy]

Since this license has been determined to be not-allowed for Fedora, should I close this issue?

yes, @adobes1 - unless someone else in the SPDX community wants to carry it forward, then there isn't much need from a Fedora perspective

[pombredanne]

FWIW, this been tracked so far in ScanCode as https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/ldpgpl-1.html and https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/ldpgpl-1a.html

[alejandro-colomar]

Is there anything using this license? I don't recall having seen it in the Linux man-pages. Please point to a file that uses it.

Edit:

Following the Fedora issue, I learnt that there's a page that uses it:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/tree/man5/dir_colors.5#n5

[alejandro-colomar]

I would like to see this license included in SPDX, but with some observations and fixes to the request:

1. License Name: Linux Documentation Project General Public License v1

(spell out LDP)

3. License Author or steward: Unknown, possibly Linux Documentation Project

Please contact them before doing this.

5. Comments: This license is used in Linux man-pages.

Please contact linux-man@vger.kernel.org for changes involving licenses mainly used there.

10. Example Projects: https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages

That URI is a mirror outdated by years compared to the official repository. The mirror itself very clearly specifies that it is only a mirror, and not a source of truth. The project is at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git.

[BrianInglis]

Another snarky comment in a licence; section 2:

c) You must not add notes to the Document implying that the reader had better read something produced using Texinfo.

which may be an understandable overreaction to GNU's somewhat overbearing antipathy to man pages, but does prohibit certain modifications which are de rigeur in GNU packages.

For an extreme GNU example, see GNU mailutils mail(1) - 22 source lines - 11 useful - 24 output lines - 14 content - 5 useful:

The full documentation for mail is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If
the info and mail programs are properly installed at your site, the
command
info mail
should give you access to the complete manual.

A later version of the LDP licence also contains the sentence:

Any translation or derivative work of Linux Installation and Getting Started must be approved by the author in writing before distribution.

which is problematic for most projects, even if they do not offer translations, and TLDP also allows authors to add clauses to licences which prohibit modifications!
Is this the real Linux? Is this just fantasy?
Control freaks, much? Or was vandalism rife, then?

[jlovejoy]

@alejandro-colomar - do you still want to add this license to the SPDX License List? Based on the thread in linux-man mailing list, I'm not clear if perhaps it's no longer being used.

If you do want to add it, then spdx-legal needs to do an analysis against the SPDX license inclusion guidelines (which wasn't really done, since @adobes1 withdrew it)

[alejandro-colomar]

On 6/8/23 06:04, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: @alejandro-colomar - do you still want to add this license to the SPDX License List? Based on the thread in linux-man mailing list, I'm not clear if perhaps it's no longer being used.

Yes, it's still being used, so I guess we need to add it.

If you do want to add it, then spdx-legal needs to do an analysis against the SPDX license inclusion guidelines (which wasn't really done, since @adobes1 withdrew it)

Please do. Thanks, Alex

…

-- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5