[License-discuss] license information improvement project - now with a mockup!

Brian Behlendorf brian at behlendorf.com
Wed Nov 6 18:43:31 UTC 2013

Nice start!  Quick comments, all in humble opinion which is why I didn't 
make edits directly...

> - 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> headers?

I think it should be clearly visually distinct from the text of the 
license itself, say in a different box with a different background color, 
just to make it clear to the first-time reader within a few seconds that 
this metadata is not the text of the license.  The table of contents for 
the license and the text of the license should be more closely visually 
aligned than this metadata.

> - 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 :)

A link to both the submission and the notes from the board meeting 
where the license was approved would seem good.

The link to "license category" should go straight to the license category 
page, not to the proliferation committee report.  On that page, each 
license category really should get the description/criteria for that 
category, rather than making the reader read through the report or guess 
from the list of licenses in each category to understand what the 
categories mean.

> - 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.

The latter, though it would be really good to dig up archives and post 
them, perhaps specifically board meeting minutes where the licenses were 

> - MOST IMPORTANTLY: Any volunteers to gather more information for more licenses?

I'll throw a hat in the ring as this gets more feedback.

-------------- next part --------------
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org

More information about the License-discuss mailing list