docs(licence): drop the PMPL preference claim — standards is not a PMPL repo - #643
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…PL repo
LICENCE-POLICY.adoc Rule 2 states PMPL-1.0-or-later applies to exactly
three repositories -- palimpsest-license, palimpsest-plasma and
consent-aware-web -- and 'every other sole-owner repository, INCLUDING
THIS standards REPO, is MPL-2.0 (code) / CC-BY-SA-4.0 (docs)'.
62 files nonetheless carried '(PMPL-1.0-or-later preferred; ...)'. The
repo contradicted its own policy document.
This is a COMMENT correction, not a relicensing: every affected file's
SPDX-License-Identifier already read MPL-2.0 (or CC-BY-SA-4.0, or MIT for
the LuaRocks rockspec), so the legally operative licence is unchanged.
Only the aspirational claim is removed.
Method: strip the 'PMPL-1.0-or-later preferred; ' clause and KEEP the
platform note that followed it, so no information is lost:
'// (PMPL-1.0-or-later preferred; MPL-2.0 required for crates.io)'
-> '// (MPL-2.0 required for crates.io)'
The rockspec's 'MIT required for LuaRocks OSI-approved policy' note is
preserved on the same principle.
Five humans.txt files carried an actual declaration rather than a
preference ('License: PMPL-1.0-or-later'); those are corrected to the
Rule 1 split.
DELIBERATELY NOT TOUCHED:
* PALIMPSEST.adoc -- its occurrence sits inside a code fence
DOCUMENTING the header format. 'Fixing' it would corrupt the
documentation of the very format it explains.
* 53 REUSE dep5 / .well-known declarations still reading
'License: PMPL-1.0-or-later'. Those are machine-read by REUSE and
SBOM tooling, so they change licence METADATA rather than a comment
and belong in their own reviewable PR.
Context for the follow-up: the vendored palimpsest-license -- the repo
that DEFINES PMPL and is Rule 2's first named member -- itself declares
19x MPL-2.0-or-later, 15x MIT, 8x 'Palimpsest-0.4 OR MIT' and 2x
AGPL-3.0-or-later, and hyperpolymath/palimpsest-license shows no licence
detected on GitHub at all. Note also 'Palimpsest-0.4' is a different
identifier from the 'PMPL-1.0-or-later' the policy names. That is a legal
question for the owner, not drift to tidy.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
LICENCE-POLICY.adocRule 2 states PMPL applies to exactly three repositories —palimpsest-license,palimpsest-plasma,consent-aware-web— and that "every other sole-owner repository — including thisstandardsrepo — is MPL-2.0 (code) / CC-BY-SA-4.0 (docs)".62 files nonetheless carried
(PMPL-1.0-or-later preferred; …). The repo contradicted its own policy document.This is a comment correction, not a relicensing
Every affected file's
SPDX-License-Identifieralready readMPL-2.0(orCC-BY-SA-4.0, orMITfor the LuaRocks rockspec). The legally operative licence is unchanged; only the aspirational claim is removed.No information lost — the clause is stripped and the platform note kept:
Five
humans.txtfiles carried an actual declaration rather than a preference (License: PMPL-1.0-or-later); those are corrected to the Rule 1 split.Deliberately not touched
PALIMPSEST.adoc— its occurrence sits inside a code fence documenting the header format. "Fixing" it would corrupt the documentation of the very format it explains.53 REUSE
dep5/.well-knowndeclarations still readingLicense: PMPL-1.0-or-later. Those are machine-read by REUSE and SBOM tooling — licence metadata, not a comment — so they get their own reviewable PR rather than riding along in this one.The vendored
palimpsest-license— the repo that defines PMPL and is Rule 2's first named member — itself declares 19×MPL-2.0-or-later, 15×MIT, 8×Palimpsest-0.4 OR MIT, 2×AGPL-3.0-or-later, andhyperpolymath/palimpsest-licenseshows no licence detected on GitHub.Note also that
Palimpsest-0.4is a different identifier from thePMPL-1.0-or-laterthe policy names — two incompatible spellings in play.The one repo that must be PMPL essentially isn't, while 58 files that must not be, were. That is a legal question, not drift to tidy, and I have not touched it.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code