Legal Team/Template proposal

Archived page

Read-only copy of the SPDX wiki. The wiki is no longer active; its content has moved to https://github.com/spdx. Last edited 2015-10-27 by Kris.re.

Introduction

As discussed on the last legal call, here’s my proposal for enhancing the markup.

There are two problems that need solving:

1. Maintaining a version of the licenses with just enough markup to aid in the computer-hard decisions
2. Make computer matching entirely logic-free by providing the required information to an implementation with markup

Since (2) may necessarily be difficult to maintain by hand, as well as be error-prone (for example, finding *every* synonym instance in some license text), I suggest that a build process is necessary to produce the "enhanced" [item (2)] markup from the human-maintained "source" markup.

Categorization of matching guidelines

Items that belong in the source markup are items that are easy for a human to identify but difficult for a program to identify (or easy for multiple implementations to get "differently"). These items include:

• Headers (copyright declaration, license name preface)
• Bullets (specifically in the case of numbered bullets with roman numerals, it can be difficult to distinguish accurately from wrapped text ending a sentence)
• Optional sections (such as instructions on license application)
• References to the author / copyright holder

Items that belong in the enhanced markup are items that are easy for a program to identify, where the build process can create a canonical "correct" form of the text to-match, thus 1) obviating implementations from the need to write boilerplate parsing code and 2) ensuring that implementations produce the same results given the same sample text. These include:

• Varietal spellings
• Copyright symbol
• Punctuation (dashes and quotes)
• Whitespace
• Capitalization

The whitespace and capitalization items are somewhat questionable, but since there is already a build process it doesn’t hurt us to add them, and it means that implementations will not have a need to perform any transformations on the matching-text beyond XML parsing. An important note: whitespace between words being significant, this approach will not necessarily lead to the desired results if we encounter a need or desire to create *optional* sections of text. For example, James, while John had hadhad had a better effect on the teacher – in this example sentence, if zero matches occur, we will be matching a sentence with two spaces in a row. I don’t believe this will currently be a problem, because I don’t know of any reason for us to mark up templates in this way; every matchable component should encompass the left and right word boundaries, so spacing should not be an issue and should be preserved exactly as produced in the enhanced markup.

Translation of current markup to proposal

Please correct me if I am mistaken – I appear to be unable to find documentation on the current markup – but I observe two elements in the current markup syntax: 1) entity replacement and 2) optional section blocks. These are quite readily translated into an XML form. I am uncertain if the variable function is used by any of the current tooling, but it can be left off until desired or added as-is.

Suggested transformations:

1. <<var; name=foo; original=Original Text; match=.+>>
   becomes:
   Original Text

2. <<beginOptional; name=optionalIntro>>Some text here<>
   becomes:
   

   Some text here

This is a fairly direct translation and could even be performed programmatically on the existing data if we elect to use a generic "optional" tag; above I’ve used "section" as a placeholder for multiple candidate tags depending on the section being described.

While we can define all desired elements in terms of "alt" tags, I believe some of them at least deserve their own tags. Bullets, for example, I would suggest wrapping in "\<b>"; this is primarily for brevity:

`1. Some clause …2. More items….  a. Sub-item…`

The need for brevity comes as a result of trying to keep the source markup as human-manageable as possible. While it’s somewhat tempting to designate hierarchical \<ol> or \<ul> items as in HTML, this doesn’t actually provide any use for *matching* purposes, so has been explicitly discarded.

Other items that might warrant their own tags actually become section wrappers, such as for copyright declarations:

<copyright>Copyright © <year> <owner>. All rights reserved.</copyright>

(This also points out the need to escape \< and > symbols as entities, a task which can be performed programmatically in a conversion process as well)

Other tags wrapping optional sections might include:

` `  Copyright © 2015 Foo Bars` `` `  License text ...` `` `  

` `` Whitespace can be formatted such that the concatenated text content of the XML file produces the original document, though that poses a minor problem if we desire to include other data streams, which I recommend we do. One way to handle that would be to wrap the above example in a higher root element, which would allow us to include things such as optional clauses and license headers: `` `` `  

This file is licensed under the Such and So License

` `  (as above)` `  …` `` ## Examples Using the above ideas, here is a marked-up example of the BSD 3 clause license in the "source" format: `` `` `` `Copyright (c)  . All rights reserved.` `` `Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:` `` `1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. ` `` `2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. ` `` `3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.` `` `THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.` `` `` And again in the "enhanced" format: `` `` `` `   . all rights reserved.` `redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:  redistributions of source code must retain the above  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.  redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.  neither the name of the  nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. this software is provided by the s and contributors "as is" and any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed. in no event shall the  or contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of this software, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.` `` `` Notice that I changed the bullets from 1. to -- this is because the "1." part doesn't matter for matching purposes, it's only phrased that way in the source markup for the purpose of reproducing the original text. You’ll note that the product of the enhanced format could now be quite readily translated into a regular expression, or parsed as an XML document to apply matching directly by some other means. It actually occurs to me that this transitory format may not be entirely necessary, but once we have reduced it to something like a regular expression, we remove the ability of a consumer to apply this data in other ways. ## Aside: normalization As with the matching guidelines, we should define an explicit process for normalizing candidate text to be matched against the SPDX data set, and should use that same approach for normalizing the data used to produce the enhanced markup. This includes \*exactly\* which Unicode characters count as dashes, quotes, etc. and how (or whether) we interpret hyphenated words vs dashes, especially with regards to whitespace, and so on. ## Matching process Following this proposal, the matching process for an implementer becomes straightforward and accurate: (optionally, if we don’t supply the data in regular expression form) Build matcher from marked up template: 1. Parse XML 2. Render body (and/or header, exception, etc.) contents to a regular expression: 1. Replace “alt” tags with their “match” attribute 2. Replace “syn” tags with a synonym list \[e.g. (foo\|bar\|baz)\] 3. Replace “b” tags with a bullet matcher 4. Replace dashes and quotes with dash/quote matchers 3. There’s no need to render copyright, title, or optional/footer sections since the matching guidelines say they can be safely ignored; only the body counts (and any addons) Apply matcher: 1. Identify candidate text 2. Normalize candidate text (lowercase, remove whitespace 3. Apply matcher(s) to candidate text As you can see, no part of this involves making determinations about what counts as a bullet, what counts as substantive text, etc., and implementation is very straightforward, utilizing only basic string manipulation and an XML parser (a tool which will be available in most every language). Conclusion This turned out to be quite long but, I hope, thorough. I will be pasting it into the wiki too, for reference; please have a think on it and reply with any comments/suggestions/etc. -Kris