Template talk:Infobox software license

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Infobox software license page.
Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] What does "FSF Approved" mean?

This template has a parameter for marking a license as "FSF approved". The FSF doesn't approve licenses, at least not in the formal way that the OSI does, so what guidance should we offer on how to set this? RossPatterson 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The FSF has a page that lists licenses [1]. They are categorized in GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses, GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses, Non-Free Software Licenses. FSF approved means that the FSF says that the license in the template is a free software license. There is not an approval process like OSI does, you can't submit new licenses to be approved, so what about changing the name in "FSF says this is a free software license" --Argento3 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but can we find a way to say it that's shorter? Maybe just "Free Software"? RossPatterson 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Free Software (with a link to the Free Software Definition) is ok for me, it's more consistent with the FSF naming, approved is more OSI-like. --Argento3 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Done. RossPatterson 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this was the right decision. Not everyone agrees with the FSF's definition of free software. For instance, some people go by the DFSG instead. I think it should go back to FSF-approved. Superm401 - Talk 07:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Approvals not NPOV?

After seeing this template in use at BSD licenses, it occurs to me that the colored backgrounds for the approval elements are biased towards the idea the approvals are good and non-approvals are bad. That appears to be a violation of the NPOV policy. RossPatterson 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, most (Americans?) associate red with bad and green with good. But I also think that we need some sort of method of distinguishing these attributes based on color. Maybe black and white or some other scheme of opposing colors not associated with any concepts.--Cogburnd02 15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think we need coloring at all. Least of all red/green, which has bias connotations and which can't be discriminated by 10% of the male population. But I see now that the coloring doesn't come from this template, but rather from the {{yes}} and {{no}} templates that this one asks people to use. I'm going to change a few to simply "yes" and "no" and see how it looks. RossPatterson 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compatibility with proprietary code

It would be useful to note if the license allows derivatives to be proprietary. By the way, LGPL doesn't have this infobox. --Macrakis 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

LGPL is Done, and GPL too. RossPatterson 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compatitbility with GPL 2 or 3?

I see that Apache License has used this template with GPL compatible = {{yes}} - GPLv3. That brings up an interesting point - is it worth having two fields, one for GPL2 and one for GPL3? Increased compatility was, of course, a GPL3 design goal. RossPatterson 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Common Public License has something similar. RossPatterson 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I support this. If no one objects, it should be added. GPLv2 will remain an important license for the forseeable future, and GPLv3 is quickly becoming one. Superm401 - Talk 07:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debian doesn't approve licenses

According to the Debian License information page, Debian doesn't approve licenses:

Lists are maintained by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Please note however, that the Debian project decides on particular packages rather than licenses in abstract, and the lists are general explanations. It is possible to have a package containing software under a "free" license with some other aspect that makes it non-free. Sometimes, debian-legal comments on a license in abstract, not applied to any particular software. While these discussion can suggest possible problems, often no firm answers can be reached until some specific software is examined.

So what does "Debian approved" mean in this context? RossPatterson 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

The copyright field is quite ambiguous when on the actual license page. Many people are going to think it describes the kind of license, not the copyright on the text of the license. What it is actually meant to describe is not all that important. Almost all licenses are copyrighted by their author, and allow you to reproduce their text. I suggest this field be removed. Superm401 - Talk 07:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I put it there because it is important to know if derivative licenses are possible. --Argento3 (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that's useful information, but I still think it's misleading to put in the infobox. Superm401 - Talk 13:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)