spdx@lists.spdx.org | zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Date Date 1 - 8 of 8

zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...> #227 I had a question regarding clarifying the zlib and libpng licenses versus what the OSI lists as the zlib/libpng license on their list. Perhaps Tom, Martin, or Jeff can shed some light on this? The zlib license can be found here: http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html The libpng license can be found here: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same, with the exception of a longer explanation for clause 1 in the zlib license and a lengthier disclaimer statement in the libpng license. Also, the libpng license includes the applicable attribution notices for the various project versions. Whereas, the OSI has what I would call a generic (no copyright notice at all, nor author name) version of the zlib license. Yet, OSI lists one, which tracks most closely to the zlib license and calls it zlib/libpng: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php Does anyone have any insight as to why this is this way on the OSI list? More importantly, how should we handle this for our list? List all three variations (what the OSI refers to as zlib/libpng and then the specific zlib and libpng separately) or just the OSI version or what? I will post the latest version of the license list (with other changes as discussed in the last few meetings) after this question is resolved. Thanks! Jilayne Lovejoy \| Corporate Counsel jlovejoy@... 720 240 4545 \| phone 720 240 4556 \| fax 1 888 OpenLogic \| toll free www.openlogic.com OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
More
Tom "spot" Callaway #228 On 12/20/2010 10:26 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same, with the exception of a longer explanation for clause 1 in the zlib license and a lengthier disclaimer statement in the libpng license. Also, the libpng license includes the applicable attribution notices for the various project versions. Fedora treats these two licenses as functionally identical, and calls them both "zlib". The third license looks to just be a templated version of the zlib license. ~tom == Fedora Project
More All Messages By This Member
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...> #229 So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two package-specific licenses on our initial list? Jilayne toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa@...] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:06 AM To: Jilayne Lovejoy Cc: spdx@...; Martin Michlmayr; jeff@... Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification On 12/20/2010 10:26 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same, with the exception of a longer explanation for clause 1 in the zlib license and a lengthier disclaimer statement in the libpng license. Also, the libpng license includes the applicable attribution notices for the various project versions. Fedora treats these two licenses as functionally identical, and calls them both "zlib". The third license looks to just be a templated version of the zlib license. ~tom == Fedora Project
More
Tom "spot" Callaway #230 On 12/21/2010 06:43 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two package-specific licenses on our initial list? Yes, but I think the general trend for the SPDX initiative has been that any difference in wording (with the possible exception of copyright holder identifiers), even if it has no effect on the rights or restrictions of the license, should be a separate and distinct license for tracking purposes. I happen to think that approach spirals off into absurdity, but that's just my opinion. :) ~tom == Fedora Project
More All Messages By This Member
Soeren_Rabenstein@... #231 This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call: How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only difference of which is the Copyright notice? The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I understand this right, we are going to define the reference license text of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is this right? Cheers Soeren toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Tom Callaway Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:20 AM To: Jilayne Lovejoy Cc: spdx@... Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification On 12/21/2010 06:43 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two package-specific licenses on our initial list? Yes, but I think the general trend for the SPDX initiative has been that any difference in wording (with the possible exception of copyright holder identifiers), even if it has no effect on the rights or restrictions of the license, should be a separate and distinct license for tracking purposes. I happen to think that approach spirals off into absurdity, but that's just my opinion. :) ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx ===================================================================================================================================== This email and any attachments to it contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.If you are not the intended recipient or receive it accidentally, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your computer system, and destroy all hard copies. If any, please be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is illegal and prohibited. Furthermore, any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of ASUSTeK. Thank you for your cooperation. =====================================================================================================================================
More
Tom "spot" Callaway #232 On 12/21/2010 09:14 PM, Soeren_Rabenstein@... wrote: This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call: How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only difference of which is the Copyright notice? The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I understand this right, we are going to define the reference license text of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is this right? Sure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally change the license's meaning, but it is technically different text, even if templated. ~tom == Fedora Project
More All Messages By This Member
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...> #233 Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, which is basically the zlib license template (no specific copyright) and then the specific libpng license, since it does have some other text differences. In which case, we might simply call it the "zlib" license instead of the OSI's "zlib/libpng" license, which is a bit confusing. Thoughts? I'd like to get the latest version of the license list uploaded tomorrow, if possible, pending this issue :) Jilayne toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa@...] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:27 PM To: Soeren_Rabenstein@... Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; spdx@... Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification On 12/21/2010 09:14 PM, Soeren_Rabenstein@... wrote: This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call: How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only difference of which is the Copyright notice? The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I understand this right, we are going to define the reference license text of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is this right? Sure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally change the license's meaning, but it is technically different text, even if templated. ~tom == Fedora Project
More
Tom "spot" Callaway #235 On 12/22/2010 07:37 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, which is basically the zlib license template (no specific copyright) and then the specific libpng license, since it does have some other text differences. In which case, we might simply call it the "zlib" license instead of the OSI's "zlib/libpng" license, which is a bit confusing. Thoughts? For SPDX, I suppose it makes sense to take the templated zlib and call it "zlib", and call the libpng variant "libpng", even though I don't think Fedora will ever make that distinction. ~tom == Fedora Project
More All Messages By This Member

1 - 8 of 8

1

Previous Topic Next Topic

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms