Add FsfLibre flag to GPL-2.0 #453

goneall · 2017-10-19T22:46:40Z

Signed-off-by: Gary O'Neall [email protected]

Signed-off-by: Gary O'Neall <[email protected]>

wking · 2017-10-19T23:27:34Z

src/GPL-2.0.xml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <SPDXLicenseCollection xmlns="http://www.spdx.org/license">
-   <license isOsiApproved="true" licenseId="GPL-2.0"
+   <license isOsiApproved="true" isFsfLibre="true" licenseId="GPL-2.0"


As I've said earlier, I'd much rather be pulling this from an FSF API. In the absence of such an API (the current situation) I think we should put this information in a mock FSF API which we can hand over to the FSF when they're ready to step up and maintain it. I really don't like baking other people's metadata into our root data repository. I would much rather this information be included in license-list-data after being pulled from the (mock) FSF API, instead of including the metadata here.

I am ok baking in an FSF license ID (if they decide to diverge from SPDX IDs in their API), at least until we address #418.

Agree in principle, but I don't want to screen scrape for the information. We could have a mock API that would work from a config file. It should present the data through a web API, preferably REST based

I was imagining we dump some JSON into GitHub. I'll sketch that out tonight.

JSON works. If you put together sending side - I can update the SPDX license generator to use it.
@kestewart - Can you just put together a list of the licenses you think are FSF Libre?

I'll pull the list using JavaScript, as I showed on the mailing list.

@goneall - sure. Just a flat text file of one SPDX-license-identifier per line for the subset that are isFsfLibre?

goneall · 2017-10-20T16:17:36Z

@kestewart Yes - just a flat file for now. In the long run, we would like to get FSF to own the list themselves and also own the API code.

wking · 2017-10-20T17:30:44Z

@kestewart, @goneall, I've pushed my mock JSON API to https://github.com/wking/fsf-api. You can pull the list of all of their identifiers from https://wking.github.io/fsf-api/licenses.json and get a specific license from (for example) https://wking.github.io/fsf-api/Expat.json. It still needs work filling in the SPLITS and IDENTIFIERS information, which expands cases where the FSF uses one anchor for multiple licenses and maps their identifiers to ours.

kestewart · 2017-10-21T15:52:47Z

@goneall @wking The licenses we should be able to mark now are:

AFL-1.1
AFL-1.2
AFL-2.0
AFL-2.1
AFL-3.0
AGPL-1.0
Apache-1.0
Apache-1.1
Apache-2.0
APSL-2.0
Artistic-2.0
BSL-1.0
BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD
BSD-3-Clause
BSD-3-Clause-Clear
BSD-4-Clause
CECILL-2.0
CECILL-B
CECILL-C
CDDL-1.0
CPAL-1.0
CPL-1.0
Condor-1.1
EPL-1.0
ECL-2.0
EFL-2.0
EUDatagrid
EUPL-1.1
FTL
AGPL-3.0
GFDL-1.1
GFDL-1.2
GFDL-1.3
GPL-1.0
GPL-2.0
GPL-3.0
LGPL-2.1
LGPL-3.0
LGPL-2.0
gnuplot
HPND
IPL-1.0
iMatix
Imlib2
IJG
Intel
ISC
LPPL-1.2
LPPL-1.3a
LPL-1.02
MS-PL
MS-RL
MPL-1.1
MPL-2.0
NOSL
NPL-1.0
NPL-1.1
Nokia
OLDAP-2.3
OLDAP-2.7
OSL-1.0
OSL-1.1
OSL-2.0
OSL-2.1
OSL-3.0
OpenSSL
PHP-3.01
Python-2.0
QPL-1.0
RPSL-1.0
Ruby
SGI-B-2.0
Sleepycat
SMLNJ
SPL-1.0
Unlicense
UPL-1.0
NCSA
X11
XFree86-1.1
xinetd
YPL-1.1
Zend-2.0
Zimbra-1.3
Zlib
ZPL-2.0
ZPL-2.1

kestewart · 2017-10-21T15:53:47Z

Note: there are some licenses on their list that aren't in ours, as well as some its not clear and research is going to be needed - but we can certainly start with the ones I've listed.

wking · 2017-10-21T17:57:49Z

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 03:52:48PM +0000, Kate Stewart wrote: The licenses we should be able to mark now are…

Differences between your list and the current state of wking/fsf-api [1]: AFL-1.1 AFL-1.1 AFL-1.2 AFL-1.2 AFL-2.0 AFL-2.0 AFL-2.1 AFL-2.1 AFL-3.0 AFL-3.0 AGPL-1.0 AGPL-1.0 AGPL-3.0 AGPL-3.0 APSL-2.0 < Apache-1.0 < Apache-1.1 < Apache-2.0 < Artistic-2.0 Artistic-2.0 BSD-2-Clause-Fre | BSD-2-Clause BSD-3-Clause | CC0-1.0 BSD-3-Clause-Cle < BSD-4-Clause < BSL-1.0 < CDDL-1.0 CDDL-1.0 CECILL-2.0 CECILL-2.0 CECILL-B CECILL-B CECILL-C CECILL-C CPAL-1.0 CPAL-1.0 CPL-1.0 CPL-1.0 ClArtistic Condor-1.1 Condor-1.1 ECL-2.0 ECL-2.0 EFL-2.0 EFL-2.0 EPL-1.0 EPL-1.0 EPL-2.0 EUDatagrid EUDatagrid EUPL-1.1 EUPL-1.1 FTL | FSFAP GFDL-1.1 < GFDL-1.2 < GFDL-1.3 < GPL-1.0 < GPL-2.0 < GPL-3.0 GPL-3.0 HPND | MIT IJG < IPL-1.0 < ISC < Imlib2 < Intel < LGPL-2.0 < LGPL-2.1 < LGPL-3.0 < LPL-1.02 < LPPL-1.2 < LPPL-1.3a < MPL-1.1 < MPL-2.0 < MS-PL < MS-RL < NCSA < NOSL < NPL-1.0 < NPL-1.1 < Nokia < OLDAP-2.3 < OLDAP-2.7 < OSL-1.0 < OSL-1.1 < OSL-2.0 < OSL-2.1 < OSL-3.0 < OpenSSL < PHP-3.01 < Python-2.0 < QPL-1.0 < RPSL-1.0 < Ruby < SGI-B-2.0 < SMLNJ < SPL-1.0 < Sleepycat Sleepycat UPL-1.0 < Unlicense < X11 < XFree86-1.1 < YPL-1.1 < ZPL-2.0 < ZPL-2.1 < Zend-2.0 < Zimbra-1.3 < Zlib < gnuplot < iMatix < xinetd < Pull requests that continue to fill in SPLITS and IDENTIFIERS are welcome :). [1]: diff -yW 40 kstewart <((echo '['; A=; for x in *.json; do if test licenses.json = "$x"; then continue; fi; test -n "$A" && echo ','; A=1; cat $x;done; echo ']') | jq -r '.[] | select(.tags | contains(["libre"])) | .identifiers.spdx' | grep -v null | sort)

goneall · 2017-10-21T21:16:44Z

@wking Working on a PR to add identifiers - should be committing sometime in the next hour or so

Based on Kate's list [1]. Looking more closely, the FSF's FreeBSD text [2] includes the "The views and conclusions..." paragraph that is unique to the BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD [3]. The FSF's FreeBSD page [2] also links [4]. [1]: spdx/license-list-XML#453 (comment) [2]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=License:FreeBSD [3]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/e5da40e25becb0aa7626d3f62649d2387284a623/src/BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD.xml#L38-L40 [4]: https://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html

wking · 2017-10-21T21:50:36Z

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 05:57:50PM +0000, W. Trevor King wrote: BSD-2-Clause-Fre | BSD-2-Clause

Oops, I'd matched [1,2] with our BSD-2-Clause, but it's really our BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD [3]. Fixed in wking/fsf-api@4d127a0.. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSDDL [3]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=License:FreeBSD

kestewart · 2017-10-21T21:58:34Z

@wking can you help me understand why you've marked
HPND | MIT
in your list - HPND should be added, and MIT shouldn't be there.

wking · 2017-10-21T22:20:37Z

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 09:58:34PM +0000, Kate Stewart wrote: @wking can you help me understand why you've marked HPND | MIT in your list - HPND should be added…

It's probably just missing because my SPLITS and IDENTIFIERS are incomplete. @goneall is filling them in some more right now [1].

… and MIT shouldn't be there.

Our MIT is the FSF's Expat [2,3]. Cheers, Trevor [1]: #453 (comment) [2]: https://github.com/wking/fsf-api/blob/4d127a032c6f6b6307349571aa72e73d6a11edd7/pull.py#L101 [3]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-October/002287.html

goneall · 2017-10-21T22:22:55Z

I made some progress on adding splits and identifiers, but ran out of time. I just created a PR with the work so far. I can pick up where I left off later today or tomorrow.

wking · 2017-10-23T22:53:29Z

With this and two local commits to address the FSF's Ruby and PythonOld, fsf-api will diverge from @kestewart's earlier list with:

$ diff kstewart <((echo '['; A=; for x in *.json; do if test licenses.json = "$x"; then continue; fi; test -n "$A" && echo ','; A=1; cat $x;done; echo ']') | jq -r '.[] | select(.tags | contains(["libre"])) | select(.identifiers.spdx) | .identifiers.spdx' | sort)
17a18,21
> BitTorrent-1.1
> CC-BY-4.0
> CC-BY-SA-4.0
> CC0-1.0
23a28
> ClArtistic
27a33
> EPL-2.0
29a36
> FSFAP
34d40
< GPL-1.0
35a42
> GPL-2.0+ WITH eCos-exception-2.0
38a46
> IPA
43d50
< LGPL-2.0
48a56
> MIT
57a66,67
> ODbL-1.0
> OFL-1.1
76a87,89
> Vim
> W3C
> WTFPL

So fsf-api lists a number of additional SPDX identifiers as FSF-libre. The only SPDX IDs given by @kestewart which are not covered by fsf-api are GPL-1.0 and LGPL-2.0. I expect the FSF considers those compatible with the GPL in some cases, although I don't see them address that directly in their current list or compat table. The do explicitly discuss GPL-2.0, where they say:

Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well…

And note that their “compatible with the GNU GPL” tag really means “compatible with GPL-3.0”. For example, they list Apache-2.0 under compatible and then say:

This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL.

Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version…

So in the absence of explicit FSF language claiming GPL-3.0 compatibility for the GPL-1.0 and LGPL-2.0 (possibly under some “usually or later” extenuating circumstances), I've left those out of fsf-api for now.

goneall · 2017-10-24T17:46:41Z

It seems odd that GPL-1.0 and LGPL-2.0 is not on the list. I would like to ask FSF to review the FsfLibre list and in particular GPL-1.0 and LGPL-2.0.

@kestewart Did you want to take the lead on this since you and @jlovejoy have been working with FSF on other topics? An ideal outcome would be for FSF to own a list of FSF license ID's and their mapping to SPDX license ID's as well as indicating if the license is FsfLibre. If this were machine readable and stored in a repository, we could replace the HTML scraping with something more reliable and authoritative from the FSF.

wking · 2017-10-24T19:17:03Z

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 05:46:41PM +0000, goneall wrote: An ideal outcome would be for FSF to own a list of FSF license ID's and their mapping to SPDX license ID's as well as indicating if the license is FsfLibre. If this were machine readable and stored in a repository, we could replace the HTML scraping with something more reliable and authoritative from the FSF.

Instead of the FSF maintaining the license mapping, I'd rather the FSF provide a way to retrieve the text they considered for a given license entry. For example, they currently have links to [1] and similar, which we provide in the mock API: $ curl -s https://wking.github.io/fsf-api/Expat.json | jq -r .uri http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat But scraping the license text out of the wiki page seems brittle (and some license entries link to non-wiki pages, e.g. [2] linking [3]). If they provided easy access to their text, we could use our matching logic to automatically calculate the equivalent SPDX expression (if any), as discussed in #418. Then nobody needs to maintain the SPDX ↔ FSF ID mapping by hand, and anyone can verify an asserted mapping. And I would be happy to transfer wking/fsf-api over to the FSF, or to deprecate it in favor of an API that they develop from scratch, if either of those will help move the FSF towards maintaining their own canonical API. [1]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CPAL [3]: https://www.socialtext.net/open/cpal_license_in_wikitext

goneall · 2017-11-29T18:56:12Z

Since this is externally managed by an API, I'm closing this PR. No need to maintain the flag in the XML source.

This had been added in 378fe01 (Update all source files to the new XML format and add in the tools from the schemadev branch, 2017-10-17), but we later decided that we didn't need it [1] because we could lean on our mock FSF API [2]. [1]: spdx#453 (comment) [2]: https://github.com/wking/fsf-api

Add FsfLibre flag to GPL-2.0

6937538

Signed-off-by: Gary O'Neall <[email protected]>

wking reviewed Oct 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

wking mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2017

Older GNU Licenses are not tagged on the FSF license page wking/fsf-api#7

Open

goneall closed this Nov 29, 2017

jlovejoy deleted the addfsffreegpl branch December 27, 2017 23:33

This was referenced Dec 29, 2017

schema/ListedLicense: Drop isFsfLibre #582

Merged

FSF approved from the mock-FSF API at wking/fsf-api? github/choosealicense.com#561

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add FsfLibre flag to GPL-2.0 #453

Add FsfLibre flag to GPL-2.0 #453

goneall commented Oct 19, 2017

wking Oct 19, 2017

goneall Oct 19, 2017

wking Oct 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

goneall Oct 20, 2017

wking Oct 20, 2017

kestewart Oct 20, 2017

goneall commented Oct 20, 2017

wking commented Oct 20, 2017

kestewart commented Oct 21, 2017

kestewart commented Oct 21, 2017 •

edited

Loading

wking commented Oct 21, 2017 via email

goneall commented Oct 21, 2017

wking commented Oct 21, 2017 via email

kestewart commented Oct 21, 2017

wking commented Oct 21, 2017 via email

goneall commented Oct 21, 2017

wking commented Oct 23, 2017

goneall commented Oct 24, 2017

wking commented Oct 24, 2017 via email •

edited

Loading

goneall commented Nov 29, 2017

Add FsfLibre flag to GPL-2.0 #453

Add FsfLibre flag to GPL-2.0 #453

Conversation

goneall commented Oct 19, 2017

wking Oct 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

goneall Oct 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wking Oct 20, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

goneall Oct 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wking Oct 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kestewart Oct 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

goneall commented Oct 20, 2017

wking commented Oct 20, 2017

kestewart commented Oct 21, 2017

kestewart commented Oct 21, 2017 • edited Loading

wking commented Oct 21, 2017 via email

goneall commented Oct 21, 2017

wking commented Oct 21, 2017 via email

kestewart commented Oct 21, 2017

wking commented Oct 21, 2017 via email

goneall commented Oct 21, 2017

wking commented Oct 23, 2017

goneall commented Oct 24, 2017

wking commented Oct 24, 2017 via email • edited Loading

goneall commented Nov 29, 2017

wking Oct 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

kestewart commented Oct 21, 2017 •

edited

Loading

wking commented Oct 24, 2017 via email •

edited

Loading