Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add previous versions of the AFL licenses #66

Open
goneall opened this issue Sep 16, 2021 · 8 comments
Open

Add previous versions of the AFL licenses #66

goneall opened this issue Sep 16, 2021 · 8 comments

Comments

@goneall
Copy link
Contributor

goneall commented Sep 16, 2021

The Academic Free Licenses versions 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 2.1 are marked as OSI approved in the SPDX license list, however, these licenses do not show up on the OSI list of approved licenses nor in this repo.

This was discussed in the SPDX license list issue #1327

Based on this comment, earlier versions were approved by OSI.

Based on this comment, OSI does not "unapproved" licenses once approved.

Suggest we add the older versions of AFL to this repo to be consistent with SPDX.

@webmink
Copy link
Member

webmink commented Sep 26, 2021

@paultag @zacchiro How did you envision the API handling this sort of versioning issue?

@zacchiro
Copy link
Contributor

Right now the information on the OSI website does not handle versioning (as @goneall also observes in this bug report).
As a first approximation, I think the API shouldn't either, it should just be a machine-readable equivalent of what's on the website.
(In the future, if the website starts doing that, we can consider adding a versioned API too, but doing the latter before the former doesn't seem wise.)

@webmink
Copy link
Member

webmink commented Sep 26, 2021

OK. I've been discussing this with @smaffulli and our goal is to have the OSI license pages built from the API at some point next year, so it would be best to address the issue here with whatever meta-data we need to include to indicate superseded but originally approved versions. Perhaps we could discuss how to do this in a fresh issue.

@webmink
Copy link
Member

webmink commented Sep 26, 2021

Closed pending the discussion of the API capability as currently the design does not address the matter raised.

@goneall
Copy link
Contributor Author

goneall commented Sep 26, 2021

A couple of considerations on this issue:

  • The SPDX listed licenses will continue to mark the previous versions of AFL licenses as OSI approved per the discussion in the above referenced License-list-XML discussion. If OSI believes the previous versions of AFL are no longer OSI approved, please open an issue on the License-list-XML repo so we can keep the SPDX license list in sync.
  • I will not be able to generate the OSI approved flag for the SPDX listed licenses from this metadata until this issue is resolved.
  • There are other licenses on the OSI web page that do have multiple license versions listed (e.g. Apache), so adding the previous versions of the AFL on the website would be consistent.

Would it be possible to add the other AFL license versions on the OSI website AND add it into this metadata?

In terms of tracking this issue, I would prefer this issue to be reopened to be tracked here as an open issue since I believe it represents and inconsistency in the OSI API and OSI website. If you prefer to leave it closed, I can re-open spdx/license-list-XML#1327.

@webmink
Copy link
Member

webmink commented Sep 26, 2021

OK!

@webmink webmink reopened this Sep 26, 2021
@goneall
Copy link
Contributor Author

goneall commented Sep 30, 2021

Thanks @webmink for re-opening the issue.

Note that there is a similar issue for the Apple Public License versions prior to version 2.0.

See spdx/license-list-XML#1328 for a discussion in the SPDX repo.

Since there is already an issue opened in the SPDX repo, I won't open a new one here.

@webmink
Copy link
Member

webmink commented Oct 1, 2021

OK, I have added this to #67 as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants