On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 14:43 -0700, Ken Conley wrote: 
> It's a simple addition, but I'm wondering if it is redundant with the
> URL.  i.e. while there is a general URL for the LGPL license, there is
> a specific URL for the 3.0 license:
> 

That is a reasonable solution, but not as machine parseable. I can think
of use cases where someone doesn't want to install GPLed code, but I'm
not sure there is a use case for the version info.

> It seems that the versioned URL should be preferred whenever possible.

This should be included in the best practices section of the REP that
covers licenses.

> A REP on license strings would be a great contribution.  If you're
> curious, I've included a list of known license strings according to
> rosdoc.

This REP would also be a great place to mention best practices regarding
not using GPl or other viral licenses for message definitions.

Should there be a better way of specifying multiple licenses?

> - Ken
> 
> http://www.ros.org/doc/api/licenses.html
> 
> ???
> Apache 2.0
> Apache License 2.0
> Apache License 2.0/BSD
> Apache License, Version 2.0
> Apache License, Version 2.0 (contaminated)
> BSD
> BSD (learning) and Boost/research-only (inference
> BSD (new)
> BSD (non-commercial use)
> BSD, Boost
> BSD, Boost Software License (Poco)
> BSD, Creative Commons
> BSD, GPL, LGPL
> BSD, LGPL
> BSD, LGPL, GPL for sigblock
> BSD, NOSA
> BSD, Python License
> BSD, based on vicon_mocap from the starmac stacks
> BSD, except for source files individually marked otherwise
> BSD, APACHE 2.0
> BSD, GPL
> BSD-style
> BSD/GPL
> Boost Software LicenseVersion 1.0
> CC BY-NC-SA 2.5
> CeCILL-B (BSD-like)
> CeCiLL
> Closed source
> Commercial
> Creative Commons (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike)
> Creative Commons 3.0 by
> Creative Commons Attribution
> Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
> CreativeCommons BY-NC-SA License1
> CreativeCommons-by-nc-sa-2.0
> Enea Scioni
> GNU
> GNU LGPL 2.1
> GPL26
> GPL + runtime exception
> GPL because of list.h; other files released under BSD
> GPL v2
> GPL v2 or later
> GPL v2 with linking exception
> GPL+linking exception
> GPL+runtime exception
> GPLv2+
> GPLv3
> GPLv3+
> LGPL
> LGPL (contaminated)
> LGPL - BSD
> LGPL v2
> LGPL v2.1 or later
> LGPL,BSD
> LGPL,Boost Software License
> LGPL/BSD
> LGPLv2.1 / BSD
> LGPLv3
> Lesser GPL and Apache License, Version 2.0
> MIT
> MIT License, refer to dom.txt in the "others" folder.
> Many
> Mozilla Public License Version 1.1
> No Clue
> Proprietary
> Public Domain
> Public domain
> QPL
> The Apache License 2.0
> Unknown1
> Various
> WhoCares
> ZLib
> babel
> binary only
> cffi
> free for non-commercial use
> proprietary
> trivial-features
> unknown
> wxWindows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Bill Morris <morris@ee.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:
> > This probably isn't a priority for anyone but, I'd like to propose that
> > the license tag have a version attribute
> > http://www.ros.org/wiki/Manifest/XML#A.3Clicense.3E_tag
> >
> > <license url="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html"
> > version="3.0">LGPL</<license>
> >
> > It may also be worth including in a REP somewhere examples of common
> > values so we don't end up with every possible permutation of "lesser
> > GPL", "lgpl", "LGPL", "LGPLv3", etc.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-users mailing list
> > ros-users@code.ros.org
> > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> >