mirrors
/
licensee
mirror of https://github.com/licensee/licensee.git
7
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs/what-we-look-at: Remove "Is it GPLv2? GPLv2 or later?" 

Some packaging systems allow you to make these distinctions.  For
example, Python supports "or later" Trove classifiers [1] and npm
allows SPDX license expression syntax v2.0 [2] (and SPDX expressions
support '+', e.g. 'GPL-2.0+' [3]).

The point of this paragraph is that such an entry is metadata which
may not be sufficiently binding [4], while including the full license
text is much more likely to be legally binding.  By removing the FUD
about "cannot distinguish between GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+", we can focus
on the point that actually matters.

[1]: https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=list_classifiers
     > License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License v2 (GPLv2)
     > License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License v2 or later (GPLv2+)
[2]: https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#license
     > If your package is licensed under multiple common licenses, use
     > an SPDX license expression syntax version 2.0 string...
[3]: https://spdx.org/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/spdx-2.0.pdf#page=82
     > An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary "+"
     > operator suffix to represent the current version of the license
     > or any later version.  For example: GPL-2.0+
[4]: https://github.com/benbalter/licensee/issues/4
     What's legally sufficient to constitute a grant of an open source
     software license?
This commit is contained in:
W. Trevor King 2017-02-20 13:06:13 -08:00
parent 28d1c1b789
commit 3f2ed3ab2b
1 changed files with 1 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
docs/what-we-look-at.md
View File

@ -33,9 +33,7 @@ Because reasons.
Because it's not legally binding. A license is a legal contract. You give up certain rights (e.g., the right to sue the author) in exchange for the right to use the software.
Most popular licenses today *require* that the license itself be distributed along side the software. Simply putting the letters "MIT" or "GPL" in a configuration file doesn't really meet that requirement.
Not to mention, it doesn't tell you much about your rights as a user. Is it GPLv2? GPLv2 or later? Those files are designed to be read by computers (who can't enter into contracts), not humans (who can). It's great metadata, but that's about it.
Most popular licenses today *require* that the license itself be distributed along side the software. Simply putting the letters "MIT" or "GPL" in a configuration file doesn't really meet that requirement. Those files are designed to be read by computers (who can't enter into contracts), not humans (who can). It's great metadata, but that's about it.
### What about looking to see if the author said something in the readme?