-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add list of projects using the ISC license [WIP/RFC] #377
Comments
3 programs that are well known, at least among *nix developers/admins:
Found with a wikidata query. |
Nice, thanks for the additional data and for the Wikidata query example. I hope the interface for those gets more intuitive sometime soon :) I have some questions regarding those:
I've updated my comment above with more info. Some items are tasks I can perform myself, others are questions I'd need help answering. By the way, @benbalter, is there any way to use Licensee and the Github API to automatically find the most popular repos in github licensed under the ISC license? That would be the ideal way to kickstart this and the other licenses that currently lack examples. |
I've created a category on the English Wikipedia based on the Wikidata query, and also added OpenStreetMap's iD to the list above. |
No, that's not currently possible via the API. |
@waldyrious you're right, the ideal example uses are straightforward and none of the three I pointed out are. (BTW, the license notice in each file/one for a repo is something some people feel strongly about one way or the other; I don't.) I think the ISC projects and OpenBSD are also not straightforward. Thanks for adding the ISC category on English Wikipedia. Also for all your work on Wikipedia! |
Thank you both for the comments. At this point I've reached the limit of what info I can collect or what suggestions I can make. I'll need help addressing the two checkboxes that are still open. Can you guys comment on those? Afterwards we should agree on a list of tools to present as examples. I'm not strongly opposed to complex licenses; I think we're going to have to find a balance between popularity/recognizability and license file clarity/conciseness. Ideally we'd have both, but the most recognizable projects (I'd say sudo, tmux and OpenBSD) are also the more complexly-licensed... The only one that's both quite popular and clearly licenced as ISC is the iD editor, so that should probably be included in the final list. |
A possible option is mentioning ISC being the default license for new Node.js projects, rather than picking a single node.js package. But that would deviate from the format we've been using for the examples (name+link only)... |
I think default for Node.js projects and for OpenBSD both face the same problem -- deviation from concrete LICENSE file example. Given the existing candidates and tradeoffs you've explained, I'd probably go with documentationjs, node-semver, and OpenStreetMap iD ... all straightforward and somewhat popular, and a somewhat good mix of projects. |
Agreed, sounds like a good compromise to me, although I'm somewhat bummed about tmux and sudo. Anyway, shall I make a PR? |
Yes, please do make a PR. |
Add list of projects using ISC (closes #377)
I'll use this issue to continue listing projects using this license, until a better database is available. (I could add entries to Wikidata, but I suspect entries without a Wikipedia article are kind of a grey area, depending on the popularity of the project.)
|
@waldyrious you're more than welcome to use this issue, though I think Wikidata is the right place longer term. There should be a WikiProject FLOSS (or similar) there, but it seems there isn't yet. Also useful, https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page The Vis LICENSE file is pretty interesting -- very clear and helpful on noting files using and terms of code taken from other projects -- but unfortunately not in a format programs can easily parse. Thanks for noting here! |
I've worked a bit on (English) Wikipedia's category structure to have a complete list of categories for each of the licenses covered by choosealicense. Eventually I'll propose adding an automatic link to the category corresponding to each license. Right now I'm only missing the MS-RL and Unlicense, as well as the non-code licenses (not sure how to name the categories). Any suggestions welcome! As for Wikidata, I agree, although I'm torn on the inability of using it as a comprehensive directory (even for personal pet projects). Besides, the query interface is very poor for presentation at the moment. Reasonator is an interesting alternative, but I wish we could link directly to the "related items" section. Ideally, some sort of semantic filtering of publicly available codebases (like |
Btw, the FSF directory is an awesome resource! Too bad they don't expose clean query URLs... For future reference, I'll dump below the current results that are categorized as exclusively ISC-licensed:
|
For software in Debian, there's also https://codesearch.debian.net/perpackage-results/License%3A%20ISC%20path%3Adebian%2Fcopyright/2/page_0 but something more comprehensive is needed. http://upsilon.cc/~zack/talks/2016/2016-01-31-fosdem-compliance.pdf has one interesting vision. |
With regard to
I do have some clues. :) While most ISC projects are licensed using the ISC License, Kea is licensed using the MPL 2.0. Just to keep things confusing, there are other exceptions as well. Regarding the list of @isc-projects repos: |
Yes, thanks @bconry. bind9-stats is curious -- the README says same license as Perl 5 (Artistic or GPL), but LICENSE contains the text of BSD-2-clause. @waldyrious :) I concluded a recent talk saying that there should be more sharing of licensing evaluations. BTW I wanted to use the Node.js ISC default you mention above as an example in #394 but couldn't find any documentation other than that commit. |
Thanks, that link is better, but ideally would have some explanation to serve as a good example of community license preference. Tangentially, a new specialized interface for Wikidata is somewhat helpful, though its features really need to be in the default interface: http://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/view?id=P275 (license property) |
@bconry how should kea's COPYING file be changed to reflect the MPL 2.0 license that you mentioned above? |
@bconry also, does bind9-stats use the Artistic License 1.0? That's the one used by Perl 5, according to the actual text of the license, even though v2.0 seems to be preferred according to the article I linked ("The OSI recommends that all developers and projects licensing their products with the Artistic License adopt Artistic License 2.0."). |
@waldyrious regarding bind9-stats... |
@waldyrious regarding kea's COPYING file, doesn't it already specify the MPL 2.0 (at least for those things not covered by other licenses)? |
Thanks for the clarifications @bconry. There are slight differences in the text of the Artistic Licence 1.0 from https://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0, https://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-Perl-1.0 and http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html (the latter matches the version on the git repository). Can you confirm which version should be used for bind9-stats? As for kea, yes the COPYING file does mention the MPL but I thought it was a requirement to have the full text of the license present. If not, that's fine by me as it is :) |
Although the title is not legally mandated for the license to apply, it is included in the license template text (see http://choosealicense.com/licenses/isc/ and https://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license). This provides additional clarity regarding the licensing terms. The copyright notice, however, is legally required (the text of the license even refers to "the above copyright notice"). *Note: This PR is part of a personal project to improve the consistency and visibility of the ISC license. See github/choosealicense.com#377 for more details.*
Although the title is not legally mandated for the license to apply, it is strongly recommended, and actually included in the license template text (see http://choosealicense.com/licenses/isc/ and https://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license). This provides additional clarity regarding the licensing terms. *Note: This PR is part of a personal project to improve the consistency and visibility of the ISC license. See github/choosealicense.com#377 for more details.*
I'm not creating a PR yet because I'm still collecting projects to figure out which 3 examples would be a good representative sample. Here's what I've got so far:
Some additional notes/TODO:
It appears that several of @mapbox's repositories are released under the ISC license, but there are a lot of them so I need to sift through them to find the best representative sample.The Node.js package init tool defaults to ISC, so there are bound to be popular packages using the ISC license. I need to find a way to filter the npm repository by license and find the most popular ones.NetBSD appears to have some components licensed under ISC, need to confirm.Any additional pointers?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: