Re: [Distutils] [Catalog-sig] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
For licensing, I would say we could update the PEP to say that the 'licence' argument could be used to clarify the classifier (e.g., to spell the version).
That works for me. Regards, Martin
For licensing, I would say we could update the PEP to say that the 'licence' argument could be used to clarify the classifier (e.g., to spell the version).
That works for me.
From my point of view, in order to achive that humans and machines could read by themselves the license of a package, why not create a proper classifier?
BTW, I asked today a friend who is involved in license issue and she explained me that: if the version of a license is not declared in a software product, that means that the license applied is the last one. Regards, Carlos Tejo
2009/4/18 Carlos Tejo Alonso
BTW, I asked today a friend who is involved in license issue and she explained me that: if the version of a license is not declared in a software product, that means that the license applied is the last one.
The last one at the time of licensing or the last one at the time someone comes back later and asks? Either way, the answer will change depending on who you ask; there's not necessarily exactly one answer. The licensor is responsible for specifying the license; there's no value in an unspecified version. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com> "Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Henry Miller
BTW, I asked today a friend who is involved in license issue and she explained me that: if the version of a license is not declared in a software product, that means that the license applied is the last one.
The last one at the time of licensing or the last one at the time someone comes back later and asks?
As my friend told me, this is an example: 2018 - LGPL 3.0 is released 2019 - Package X is licensed by LPGL (no version) 2020 - LPGL 4.0 is released 2021 - What's the license of the package X? LGPL 4.0 Regards, Carlos Tejo
2018 - LGPL 3.0 is released 2019 - Package X is licensed by LPGL (no version) 2020 - LPGL 4.0 is released 2021 - What's the license of the package X? LGPL 4.0
IANAL, but I don't believe this example; in addition, I consider it fairly artificial. The LGPL recommends that you include a verbatim copy of it in your source distribution; if you do so, it seems fairly clear that the license that you specified is the very version that you include with your code, even if you don't mention a version number explicitly. OTOH, if you then also include the following text in the source files (which the LGPL suggests that you do), then clearly, you explicitly make it the user's choice to pick a version: This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. However, that wording is specific to the LGPL (and the GPL), and does not apply to any other license. Regards, Martin
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:14 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
However, that wording is specific to the LGPL (and the GPL), and does not apply to any other license.
More importantly, it only applies if you specifically include it. The problem I see is with non-specification; it should be more difficult to specify imprecisely (by including text as described) than to specify precisely. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com> "Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Henry Miller
participants (3)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Carlos Tejo Alonso -
Fred Drake