On petek, 06. september 2019 05:35:48 CEST, J Lovejoy wrote:
I really wouldn’t conflate attribution and copyright notices - that seems to lead to a lot of unnecessarily confusion and other energy FWIW - this reminded me that there are some licenses that require a specific acknowledgment (I’m intentionally not using “attribution” :) in the form of specific text you need to reproduce, such as Apache-1.1, clause 3 - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.en.html
Depends on the license (e.g. CC licenses) and jurisdiction (moral rights), I’d say. So if someone really wanted to start a stink, they might use.
But you’re right, this is wider than just attribution, but that seemed the easiest use case/term for it.
When we began to do the review and conversion for the XML format, we began to label licenses that have this. We didn’t necessarily catch all of them or implement a XML tag for this, but the idea was that it would be possible (if someone wanted to do the work, there was enough work at that point that we didn’t proceed down this path at the time). Just thought I’d mention!
That helps with the license( template)s on the SPDX license list, but not all of these are included in the license text (again, see CC licenses, or UFL-1.1).
Regarding going through the XML sources and putting in the tags, I volunteer, so feel free to assign a ticket to me, but don’t have any free cycles until OSSEurope.
cheers, Matija -- gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 www: https://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suk...@gabbler.org sip: matija_suk...@ippi.fr -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2671): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2671 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/32590067/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
