Bug#887926: libsoftware-license-perl: needs summary for CC0-1.0

[gregor herrmann]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 00:29:32 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Quoting gregor herrmann (2018-01-22 00:03:59)
> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:20:21 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > 
> > > Quoting gregor herrmann (2018-01-21 19:38:05)
> > > > There doesn't seem to be a globally agreed attribution/license grant 
> > > > for CC0-1.0. What I've used so far is:
> > > > 
> > > >  To the extent possible under law, the author(s) have dedicated all
> > > >  copyright and related and neighboring rights to this software to the public
> > > >  domain worldwide. This software is distributed without any warranty.
> > > >  .
> > > >  On Debian systems, the complete text of the CC0 license, version 1.0,
> > > >  can be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/CC0-1.0.
> > > 
> > > The authors of CC0 recommends this text:
> > > 
> > > > To the extent possible under law, the person who associated CC0 with 
> > > > this work has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights 
> > > > to this work.
> > > 
> > > See <https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/> (and fill in the form...)
> > 
> > Yeah, been there :)
> > The other recommendation from Creative Commons is here:
> 
> Sorry, I lost you: What is the issue does this bugreport try to solve?

To add a __DEBIAN-SUMMARY__ section to lib/Software/License/CC0_1_0.pm
that can be used in a stand-alone License(-Grant) paragraph in
debian/copyright, pointing to /usr/share/common-licenses/CC0-1.0
instead of having to quote the whole license text.
 
> You first presented a text that you personally prefer.
> I believe Software::License is not about personal preference, so I 
> pointed to the official text from the authors of that license.

Ack.
 
> You then point to other unofficial text (likely, but it is a wiki) from 
> the authors of the license as well, and other texts found "in the wild".

Sorry about the confusion, the remark about other versions was just
about showing that I'm probably not the only one finding it hard to
find the one and only canonical official version of a license grant.
 
> I believe Software::License should present official licenses and their 
> officially recommended license grant.  

Agreed. But I see two license grants from the CC folks, one which
falls out of a configurator and one which is in a wiki.

> Also, I believe we should push 
> changes upstream and *not* deviate further in the Debian fork of the 
> Software::License - see bug#828218.

Agreed as well; see also dod's remarks in #865472.

But as long as it's handled this way, I'd rather have (MPL-1.1 and
MP-2.0 and) CC0-1.0 included in our package.


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Kurt Ostbahn: Catapilla
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: Digital Signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/attachments/20180122/1d040385/attachment.sig>