search

spdx / license-list-XML

This is the repository for the master files that comprise the SPDX License List
Other
351 stars 284 forks source link

New license request: DL-DE-BY-2.0 [SPDX-Online-Tools] #1306

Closed xenon-dev closed 2 years ago

xenon-dev commented 3 years ago

1. License Name: Datenlizenz Deutschland Namensnennung v2.0 2. Short identifier: DL-DE-BY-2.0 3. License Author or steward: govdata.de 4. Comments: Used by LGLN for open-geo-data projects 5. Standard License Header: 6. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/125 7. URL(s): https://www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0 8. OSI Status: Not Submitted 9. Example Projects: https://opengeodata.lgln.niedersachsen.de/#dop

xenon-dev commented 3 years ago

Please note: This License request was submitted by me through the online tool: "https://tools.spdx.org/app/submit_new_license/", which validates the license using the ascii codec (instead of something like UTF-8). I had to manipulate the license name a bit, in order to get it through the filtering: The correct name, like given on the page is: "DL-DE->BY-2.0" and would also be put in like that in license headers later on, but it would not match the given short-identifier here, which could lead to problems... Can this be somehow corrected afterwards or would you think it would still work?

seabass-labrax commented 3 years ago

@xenon-dev, welcome to SPDX!

There are really three types of name when it comes to entries to the License List. There is the short identifier, the name which is shown on https://spdx.org/licenses and the titleText, which is only shown in the license text itself. It is perfectly fine if those names differ from each other, so no need for concern there!

Thank you for your new license request; I hope to review it soon. :)

swinslow commented 3 years ago

Hi @xenon-dev,

Just a comment on the license short identifier (e.g., what would appear on https://spdx.org/licenses as @seabass-labrax noted, and also in SPDX-License-Identifier: _______ tags as described at https://spdx.dev/ids:

The valid characters for these identifiers are letters, numbers, hyphen (-) and period (.). See Appendix IV of the SPDX spec for more details. That means that the > character wouldn't be able to be included in the identifier.

But DL-DE-BY-2.0 should be fine as an identifier (if the license is accepted to add to the License List, of course) and the full name + titleText may be able to accommodate a broader set of characters.

jlovejoy commented 3 years ago

I'm in favor of adding this as I think it meets the inclusion guidelines

swinslow commented 3 years ago

I'm also +1 to adding, I think it meets the inclusion principles and aligns with several other national governments' open data licenses that we've added.

jlovejoy commented 3 years ago

@xenon-dev - see comment above on the short identifier - just want to make sure you are aware and then we can add it!

xenon-dev commented 3 years ago

@jlovejoy Would be okay with me, that ">" is not going to happen! Sure Accept it and add it to the list!

xenon-dev commented 2 years ago

Is there any particular reason the accepted license was pushed to the next release? We would have like to use the check against the list to give credit to the correct license. Is there anything I could help with? Open questions?

seabass-labrax commented 2 years ago

@xenon-dev, thanks for bringing this up! I think it just fell through the net (sorry about that!), but I shall make the pull request for addition so that it can make it into release 3.16 :)

jlovejoy commented 2 years ago

@xenon-dev - yes, I believe it was a matter of getting the files made and we usually ask the submitter to do that, if possible, but we failed to get that message out! In any case, thanks to @seabass-labrax for getting on it!

seabass-labrax commented 2 years ago

Should I include both the German and English texts in the XML, or just the German? https://www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0 shows both.

swinslow commented 2 years ago

@seabass-labrax Given the way they're documenting it here, I would be inclined to include both. That's the same approach we took for https://spdx.org/licenses/MulanPSL-2.0.html where they did the same thing.

That said, if it's used differently in practice (e.g. if it's typically included in distributions with just the German part) then perhaps we would still include the English part as well, but mark it as optional.

seabass-labrax commented 2 years ago

@xenon-dev, it's committed and ready for the 3.16 release now! :) Thanks again for opening this issue. Happy Christmas! :christmas_tree: