search

doubleopen-project / policy-configuration

Double Open license classification for OSS Review Toolkit (ORT) and other uses.
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
12 stars 5 forks source link

Classifications: Update CC licenses #49

Closed pepper-jk closed 8 months ago

pepper-jk commented 10 months ago

Add missing properties to CC licenses

The new property:creativecommons and property:no-modifications from PR #43 have not been applied to all appropriate CC licenses. This MR adjust the properties of the licenses, which were missed.

## Set all CC-SA to copyleft-strong

~~This MR sets all CC-SA style licenses to copyleft-strong. With property:no-modifications and property:non-commercial, any ND and NC properties are atteched to classified licenses. So there is no need to keep free-restricted as the category of the CC-N*-SA licenses. Instead the class copyleft-strong is used to mark the copyleft obligation of a SA license.~~

Signed-off-by: Jens Keim jens.keim@forvia.com

For more details see Issue https://github.com/doubleopen-project/policy-configuration/issues/36#issuecomment-1714156156 .

pepper-jk commented 10 months ago

@willebra would these changes be to your liking? I'd love to hear your feedback. :smile:

willebra commented 10 months ago

Hi, thanks for the good PR. I commented some of the changes and proposed a modification. The reasoning is as follows: we consider all CC-licenses with NC not to be open source and therefore we would not use the catergory "copyleft-strong" or another open source license category with them. Some of the CC with NC licenses seem to be "source-available" and some are "free-restricted". I would deem that "free-restricted", together with "property:non-commercial" would be the best fit. Do you think this is sensible?

Also, please confirm in this conversation that CC0 dedication is ok for your contributions.

pepper-jk commented 10 months ago

I would deem that "free-restricted", together with "property:non-commercial" would be the best fit. Do you think this is sensible?

I understand now why your main category for CC-NC is free-restricted. However, while we have a property:non-commercial, we do not have a property:copyleft. Meaning with copyleft-strong and property:non-commercial we can understand a license as restricted by a non-commercial clause and as copyleft, where as with free-restricted and property:non-commercial, we can not understand a license as copyleft, since free-restrictive does not differentiate between permissive and copyleft.

I would suggest adding both categories, free-restrictive and copyleft-strong, instead of adding yet another property to solve this, as copyleft-strong already reflects SA licenses. An alternate solution could be a new category copyleft-restrictive, if that would be more to your taste.

That said, I have no objection to removing the copyleft-strong changes from the PR, if that is in fact what you want. We could then discuss the issue later at length or just keep classifying differently, as we see fit.

Also, please confirm in this conversation that CC0 dedication is ok for your contributions.

I confirm that I'm fine with my contribution being licensed under CC0.

pepper-jk commented 10 months ago

In order to simplify this PR and not take more of your time, I just removed bd9903074c138b638cf0c7e7e2109533377036d7, the commit changing CC-NC-SA to copyleft-strong. This should resolve your change requests. Please confirm and resolve them accordingly.

As suggested before, we can rehash the discussion on the copyleft changes at a later date, if you'd like.

If not please let me know, then we will refrain from pushing our changes in this regard to your upstream in the future and only keep them internally.