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
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
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"
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