New license: ODC-By-1.0 #663
Conversation
text file for new license: ODC-By-1.0
add correct text
create xml file for new license: ODC-By-1.0
src/ODC-By-1.0.xml
Outdated
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | ||
| <SPDXLicenseCollection xmlns="http://www.spdx.org/license"> | ||
| <license isOsiApproved="false" licenseId="ODC-By-1.0" | ||
| name="Open Data Commons Attribution License v1.0"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you want listVersionAdded="3.2" in as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
done (and just realized looking back at 3.1 release licenses that I don't think we remembered to do this... )
| </crossRefs> | ||
| <text> | ||
| <titleText> | ||
| <optional>##</optional> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should use <alt> for these. For an example of a similar change, see #661.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
discussed on call as could go either way - this was what Gary submitted and it's works, so leaving as is (and copied same method here) unless it's so annoying or causes problems that someone wants to update :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... unless it's so annoying or causes problems that someone wants to update :)
I'm fine filing a follow-up update like #661.
| <p>ODC Attribution License (ODC-By)</p> | ||
| </titleText> | ||
| <optional>###</optional> | ||
| <p>Preamble</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we generally don't mark the preamble as optional unless there is a good reason or definitive indication from the license steward/author to do so.
| <p>The Licensor (as defined below)</p> | ||
| <p>and</p> | ||
| <p>You (as defined below)</p> | ||
| <p>agree as follows:</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is all one paragraph. I'd rather not force newlines, but if you want to, I think you should use <br/>.
Also, should this text be optional? It looks like it's "I'm about to start in on the license text", not like actual license text itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's essentially how it appears in the original: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ and https://opendatacommons.org/files/2018/02/odc_by_1.0_public_text.txt
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's essentially how it appears in the original...
Using <br/> allows you to reproduce that appearance without claiming that this is four separate paragraphs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it doesn't matter, so let's not waste time on it - it's fine as is :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it doesn't matter, so let's not waste time on it - it's fine as is :)
It matters to me, but I'm fine filing a follow-up PR ;).
| copies of the Database or a Derivative Database. Conveying does not include interaction with a | ||
| user through a computer network, or creating and Using a Produced Work, where no transfer of a | ||
| copy of the Database or a Derivative Database occurs.</p> | ||
| <p> "Contents" - The |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't really matter, but you may want to remove the space from <p> "Contents" for consistency with the other entries.
|
|
||
| ### Preamble | ||
|
|
||
| The Open Data Commons Attribution License is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Database subject only to the attribution requirements set out in Section 4. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This text seems to lack some line wrapping from their canonical text/plain form. To make it easier to verify that this is in fact their upstream text, can we generate this file programatically, with something like:
$ curl -s https://opendatacommons.org/files/2018/02/odc_by_1.0_public_text.txt | dos2unix | sed 's/[[:space:]]*$//' >test/simpleTestForGenerator/ODC-By-1.0.txtThere was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I know what you mean - but line wrapping doesn't matter/need to match the canonical in any case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I know what you mean...
You can probably get a similar effect by copy/pasting their canonical text/plain form from your browser.
... but line wrapping doesn't matter/need to match the canonical in any case.
Right, so why would we have line-wrapping preferences of our own, instead of just dropping in the text as provided by upstream (with the unix LF line endings for consistency with the rest of our samples and removing their trailing whitespace to make git show --check happy)? By sticking with their wrapping, we make it easier for folks to check our text against text asserted by opendatacommons.org. And assuming upstream doesn't drastically re-wrap, this also makes for less churn if/when we update to keep up with their changes (e.g. #600, #608).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe the text .txt files have no wrapping, and I used that to then create the xml file (roughly, it is a bit onerous, the whole process) and then wrapped by hand where needed. considering white space does not matter for matching, I don't think this matters either. let's leave it be and focus on any substantive problems
text test file and xml file