Licenses: being finicky

[tlaronde at kergis.com]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:04:42PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 14.02.24 21:37, tlaronde at kergis.com wrote:
>[...] 
> > I think that the correct way is to state 'X11' or 'MIT' or
> > whatever matches COPYING or COPYRIGHTS or whatever file explains the
> > license status and to conform, simply because this exists and is
> > standardized, to the SPDX list of identifiers.
> > 
> > What do other think about this?
> 
> IMHO we should first start moving to spdx tags on per case basis (get
> rid of all the long redundant texts), review the status quo and then
> decide on future standard license (on per-package basis - libraries
> might need different one than tools or the Xserver)

IMHO, a rule should be set when doing new stuff, reviewing the
licenses being not high on priority levels---there is more urgent
things to do.

And, for new stuff, perhaps just a SPDX line with a supplementary
line with the name of the author, and sticking to some developers'
decided license: I have no problem, for my work, with 'MIT' or
'X11'---being defined as given on the SPDX published list: there is a
difference---or, if a project has a license, to stick to the license
of the project.

I'd like not to start a bikeshedding thread about licenses ;-) I'd
like just to have some guideline in order to not introduce "noise" in
contributions.

But as about converting 'X11' to 'MIT', IMHO: no. It's not the
same (once again: sticking to the identification given by SPDX; I do
not take it as a holly reference, but just as an existing standard whose
purpose was precisely to clarify licensing issues) and should just be
stated exactly, conforming to the license text expressed in an existing
project.

My two cents,
-- 
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
                     http://www.kergis.com/
                    http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C