[License-discuss] license information improvement project - now with a mockup!
luis at lu.is
Wed Nov 6 17:33:03 UTC 2013
A few months back I posted a request for help with license information:
I've now gone ahead and made a mockup of what a license might look like
after we've improved the information we present about the license:
compare to the current MPL page at http://opensource.org/licenses/MPL-2.0
Please ignore that the two wikis have different styles/formatting, and
focus on the content.
Information included (where available):
- link to canonical text
- OSI discussion (but not board approval, which I don't find very
- other versions (where appropriate)
Information not included:
- any categorization into permissive, copyleft, etc. (I'm not sure we can
do this in a way that is useful and accurate)
- any quantitative information on license popularity (I would like to have
this, but it is difficult to do in a repeatable, objective way - discussion
for another thread)
- Any suggestions on the presentation of the information? i.e., is simple
bold headings OK? Should we do some fancy table thing instead? Do you
like/dislike the ": Information" and ": License Text" I added to the <h1>
- Any comments on what information is/isn't presented? (If you must have
extensive discussion of the existing categories or the
desirability/possibility of getting more objective information, please
change the email subject header :)
- Obviously this information will not all be available for all licenses. In
those cases, should we simply omit reference to the information, or should
we say something like "Canonical text: the canonical text is no longer
available" or "OSI discussion: this license was approved before OSI's
current mail archive system, and so the discussion is no longer available"?
I think the latter.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY: Any volunteers to gather more information for more
Looking forward to feedback-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss