Prepare for OSI compliance #247
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The proposed list of free licences should probably be wider than just the OSI-approved software licenses. Here's why:
Crucially, this broader definition of "free" still firmly excludes:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is intended to address Issue #102 by documenting a possible way to split
nltk_datainto OSI (Open Source Initiative)-compliant and nonfree parts.Why use the OSI rather than the FSF definition of free?
The overwhelming majority of major software and data distributors (Linux distros, conda-forge, Homebrew, etc.) use the OSI definition as their primary standard. The FSF definition is important for the free software movement and documentation/content (e.g., GNU, Wikimedia), but is not the baseline for most mainstream software/data distribution channels.
Two markdown files are introduced:
free_packages_osi.md: Packages with OSI-approved, public domain, or similarly permissive licenses.nonfree_packages_osi.md: Packages with more restrictive, ambiguous, or otherwise non-OSI-compliant licenses.Every effort has been made to classify each package based on available license information, but feedback and corrections are very welcome—especially for any unclear or disputed cases.
Discussion is welcome and encouraged! If you spot anything that should be reviewed or improved, please join the conversation.