Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense (was: GPLv2 - Github example)

2017-09-14 Thread W. Trevor King
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 09:44:21AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > W. Trevor King wrote: > > I don't think any of the examples there have a declared package > > license. > > I believe putting a copy of GPL in a repository is declaring a > package license. You may be able to make that argument in

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

2017-09-14 Thread W. Trevor King
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:36:01PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org URL, and > specifically Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first > discussed on spdx-legal… Unversioned license changes… exciting :p. I also see that the initial

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

2017-09-14 Thread Richard Fontana
Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org URL, and specifically Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first discussed on spdx-legal -- in fact I think it was that discussion that led to the change. - Original Message - From: "Dennis Clark"

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense (was: GPLv2 - Github example)

2017-09-14 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
W. Trevor King wrote: > I don't think any of the examples there have a declared package license. I believe putting a copy of GPL in a repository is declaring a package license. Also, note that given that GPL is a strong copyleft, the file licensing data both matters less, and also can impact the