search

spdx / license-list-XML

This is the repository for the master files that comprise the SPDX License List
Other
355 stars 288 forks source link

New license request: DocBook-XML [SPDX-Online-Tools] #2515

Closed Lupphes closed 3 months ago

Lupphes commented 4 months ago

1. License Name: DocBook XML License 2. Short identifier: DocBook-XML 3. License Author or steward: Unknown 4. Comments: This license is used in Fedora and was found during license review and backlink to this issue. It is used for docbook2X and docbook5-style-xsl. 5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/377 6. URL(s): https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/526 7. OSI Status: Unknown 8. Example Projects: https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets, https://sourceforge.net/projects/docbook2x/files/

swinslow commented 4 months ago

Text of requested license, copying from the fedora-license-data link in the request above:

        Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this
        software and associated documentation files (the <quote>Software</quote>), to deal in the
        Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify,
        merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit
        persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:  

              The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
              copies or substantial portions of the Software. 

              Except as contained in this notice, the names of individuals credited with
              contribution to this software shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
              the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
              from the individuals in question. 

              Any stylesheet derived from this Software that is publicly distributed will be
              identified with a different name and the version strings in any derived Software will
              be changed so that no possibility of confusion between the derived package and this
              Software will exist. 

          THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
          INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
          PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL DAVID CRAMER, KASUN GAJASINGHE, OR ANY
          OTHER CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN
          ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
          SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
swinslow commented 4 months ago

I'm +1 to add this, as a historical modified MIT-style license with two additional clauses that generally relate to avoiding misuse of names / marks.

Regarding the name / ID:

Formatting notes for markup:

Lupphes commented 4 months ago

I agree with the naming, XSL is probably more specific about what it is.

richardfontana commented 4 months ago

Regarding the name / ID:

  • I don't know this space, but some of the uses / references I'm finding relating to this license (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4) appear to refer to this as part of "xsl" or "docbook-xsl" rather than "DocBook XML".
    • Given that, maybe an ID of DocBook-XSL and full name "DocBook XSL License"? Or please feel free to let me know if that's not preferable here given the technical space for this one.

I guess the overall project/technology/standard is "DocBook" and DocBook XML and DocBook XSL are different parts of that technology. I don't know offhand how that relates to the licenses used including this one. But there's more than one DocBook-specific license.

jlovejoy commented 4 months ago

just need to decide on name/id

jlovejoy commented 3 months ago

@richardfontana - to clarify your comment that there is more than one DocBook-specific license - my thought was that is why using something like DocBook-XSL would make sense. Did you have an opinion one way or another on that specific suggestions?

Lupphes commented 3 months ago

I'm unsure how to approach the name as I don't know how many versions of Docbook licenses or similar are out here, which can potentially clash with this one. I think that:

  1. License Name: DocBook XLS License
  2. Short identifier: DocBook-XLS

would make sense, and it could be used similarly in #2516 with a schema addition.

OliverFendt commented 3 months ago

+1 for the Name and Short identifier, suggested by @jlovejoy but will the following phrase be taken over unchanged?

(the <quote>Software</quote>)

I think this will not be a good idea because than we mix markup and content

Lupphes commented 3 months ago

I think the license should have a standard quote, not a markup.

Is there something that must be clarified before this license can be processed? What are the following steps for this?

richardfontana commented 3 months ago

The matching guidelines say

B.6.4 Guideline: Quotes Any variation of quotations (single, double, curly, etc.) should be considered equivalent.

I don't think it is clear that this extends to <quote> tags.

jlovejoy commented 3 months ago

thanks for pointing that out @OliverFendt - I think I see what is going on: in some instances of the license text, there is a bunch of formatting type tags, see https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/blob/efd62655c11cc8773708df7a843613fa1e932bf8/xsl/docsrc/license.xml#L18

I'm not sure why the tag got included but not the rest, but in any case, I think we can go with the plain text version, as seen at: https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/blob/efd62655c11cc8773708df7a843613fa1e932bf8/xsl/COPYING#L27

in which case, the bit on "Contacting the Author" could probably be made optional?

swinslow commented 3 months ago

+1 on using the plain text version with the quotes as shown in xslt10-stylesheets COPYING file from @jlovejoy's link above.

It sounds like there's general agreement to use DocBook-XSL as ID and "DocBook XSL License" for the full name?

jlovejoy commented 3 months ago

License Inclusion Decision

Decision:

Name

DocBook XML License

License ID

DocBook-XML

XML markup

none (use text from link above, not what was in submission)

Notes:

none

Next steps

If the license has been accepted, please follow the accepted-license process to create the PR.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 months ago

This new license/exception request has been accepted and the information for the license/exception has been merged to the repository. Thank you to everyone who has participated! The license/exception will be published at https://spdx.org/licenses/ as part of the next SPDX License List release, which is expected to be in three months' time or sooner. In the interim, the new license will appear on the license list preview site at https://spdx.github.io/license-list-data/. This is an automated message.