silverhook
commented
3 months ago Re Option 1, there is the concern what to do with OSHW, Open Data, Free Culture etc. Do we want to include that or have that covered by Option 3 and an FAQ entry?
Open silverhook opened 3 months ago
silverhook
commented
3 months ago Re Option 1, there is the concern what to do with OSHW, Open Data, Free Culture etc. Do we want to include that or have that covered by Option 3 and an FAQ entry?
Option 2 – the list of licenses
When selecting Copyright ↦ Option 2, a list of licenses is presented, which seems to be slightly arbitrary.
As Option 1 provides the intersection of licenses that both the FSF classifies as Free Software Licenses AND which are approved by the OSI as Open Source licenses, it makes the current selection of Option 2 even odder.
For convenience, I made a table based on an older list by FSF and OSI. All licenses in this list are In italic are all licenses that are currently (in effect) part of the Option 1 and in bold all the licenses that are currently part of Option 2. As you can see there is some overlap, but it’s not perfect.
<!DOCTYPE html>
| CA.o | FSF | OSI | comment | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- **_Apache-2.0_** | yes | yes | yes | **Artistic-1.0** | yes | no | no | superseded by Artistic-2.0 **_Artistic-2.0_** | yes | yes | yes | **_BSD “Simplified”_** | yes | yes(?) | yes | BSD-2-Clause **_BSD “Revised”_** | yes | yes(?) | yes | BSD-3-Clause **_CDDL-1.0_** | yes | yes | yes | **_EPL-1.0_** | yes | yes | yes | superseded by EPL-2.0 **_GPL-2.0_** | yes | yes | yes | **_GPL-3.0_** | yes | yes | yes | **LGPL-2.0** | yes | no(?) | yes | oddly enough it is missing from the FSF’s list **_LGPL-2.1_** | yes | yes | yes | **_LGPL-3.0_** | yes | yes | yes | **_AGPL-3.0_** | yes | yes | yes | **_MIT_** | yes | yes(?) | yes | **_MPL-1.1_** | yes | yes | yes | superseded by MPL-2.0 | | | | FDL-1.1 | yes | yes | no | FDL-1.2 | yes | yes | no | FDL-1.3 | yes | yes | no | CC-BY-1.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-2.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-2.5 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-3.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-4.0 | yes | yes | no | CC-BY-ND-1.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-ND-2.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-ND-2.5 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-ND-3.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-ND-4.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-1.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-2.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-2.5 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-3.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-4.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-ND-1.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 | yes | no| no | CC-BY-NC-SA-1.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-SA-1.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-SA-2.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-SA-2.5 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-SA-3.0 | yes | no | no | CC-BY-SA-4.0 | yes | yes | no | CC0-1.0 | yes | yes | no |Option 1 – OSI and FSF does not work anymore
(something that I noticed while writing the above part of this issue…)
The OSI list of licenses has recently changed quite a bit offering a much longer list.
On the other hand, the FSF now recommends only GPL-3.0-or-later and AGPL-3.0-or-later (and FPL-1.3-or-later for documentation), so the intersection between the two does not not really work anymore.
We should change Option 1 to either:
SPDX IDs
While we’re at it, let us also use SPDX names throughout.