On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Bill Morris wrote: > On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 15:23 -0700, Ken Conley wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Bill Morris wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Basically I'm wondering if >> >> > version="3.0">LGPL >> >> is preferable to >> >> LGPLv3 >> >> The separate version attribute favors the family of license, names the >> license as a physical entity.  I'm mildly leaning towards the latter >> because license versions are not really equivalent to software >> versions.  GPLv3 really is a distinct and different license from >> GPLv2, it's not an upgrade per se. > > The advantage with the idea of grouping licenses is that decreases the > number of permutations. However, I'm not sure what use there is for a > machine parseable license tag besides code audits. > >> Also, I would include "please, please don't use Creative Commons. >> Even Creative Commons says don't do it": >> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F > > Another problematic one is undefined licenses. Anything is better than > undefined because I can't agree or disagree to an undefined license. There are others too that are descriptive but don't actually name a license, e.g. 'closed source' and 'proprietary'. Do you have time to author up a draft of a REP for this? I can contribute a bit of text, but right now the main focus is on getting things frozen for Electric. - Ken >> >> ??? >> >> No Clue >> >> Unknown1 >> >> WhoCares >> >> trivial-features >> >> unknown > > > > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >