Package licensing part I - the approach - was Github example

How to move forward: It appears we have not collectively agreed on what the problem is. I believe this is because there are at least two different stakeholders expressing two different sets of requirements for the License Expression Language (LEL). Stakeholder 1 (Traditional): Linux

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

Dne torek, 12. september 2017 ob 20:14:11 CEST je Zavras, Alexios napisal(a): > For even more extreme fun, I can point to cases like ffmpeg, where, > according to the options get passed to configure build script, different > files (under different licenses) get compiled and linked. Great example.

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 05:36:45PM +, Marc Jones wrote: > Maybe I have missed it in the thread, but what are the terms the > "Verbatim" license would refer to? It looks like you may have broken the thread with [1]. It initially started with [2], which has the formal proposal, including the

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

Mark, You said 'A package is a “box of stuff” where some stuff may be related by linking while other stuff is not.' While I agree that is true, I am not sure I agree that dealing with it at a file level avoids many problems. For two reasons: 1) wheather lawyers and licensing nerds like it or not

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

Trevor, Maybe I have missed it in the thread, but what are the terms the "Verbatim" license would refer to? Is it intended to refer to a specific set of licensing terms or just a category of possible explicit or implicit licensing statements? For example the licensing terms for redistributing

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 04:38:57PM +, Andrew Katz wrote: > My recollection is that Apache 2.0 is under Apache 2.0, also. All explicitly-licensed licenses are going to eventually end up in some sort of loop like this (although you could have an A → B → A… cycle, etc.). Doesn't it seem like

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 02:52:26PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Mark Gisi: > > the SPDX identifier model will need to accommodate a LicenseRef > > like mechanism... > > I'm not arguing to *remove* licenserefs, I agree they can be useful. > > My point is different. Since many users *only* use

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

My recollection is that Apache 2.0 is under Apache 2.0, also. On 12 Sep 2017, at 14:04, Richard Fontana > wrote: Not to detract from your general point but Creative Commons has, admirably, placed CC0 under CC0. :-)

RE: GPLv2 - Github example

Mark Gisi: > LicenseRefs are critical for creating SPDX files. I disagree, for at least two reasons: 1. A vast amount of software does *NOT* require weird special-case licenserefs. 2. Many people who use SPDX will never see nor use a SPDX file. Instead, many people use SPDX *exclusively* for

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

Dne torek, 12. september 2017 ob 15:04:10 CEST je Richard Fontana napisal(a): > Not to detract from your general point but Creative Commons has, admirably, > placed CC0 under CC0. https://creativecommons.org/policies/#license Neat! Good to know and thanks for digging this up :) Also, re-reading

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

Not to detract from your general point but Creative Commons has, admirably, placed CC0 under CC0. :-) https://creativecommons.org/policies/#license - Original Message - From: "Matija Šuklje" To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:03:01

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

Disclaimer: I haven’t read the full thread and for now don’t intend to, unless I get a compelling reason to. I apologise if this e-mail will repeat something already said. All I wanted to say about this is that if we go down that rabbit hole, we will evenutally end with the question what