Re: SPDX-License-Identifier for composite-licensed source files

2019-12-12 Thread Gary O'Neall
+1 on Kate’s recommendation. This format will be properly parsed by the SPDX Tools parsers (the 3 parsers I am aware of) and I believe represents the intent behind the AND operator. Gary From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Kate Stewart Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 8:49

Re: SPDX-License-Identifier for composite-licensed source files

2019-12-12 Thread J Lovejoy
> On Dec 12, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Kate Stewart > wrote: > > Hi Richard, > I suspect the others will comment as well, but > I would hope to see > "SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0" > as a summary. Agree. And also agree with Richard’s comment about avoiding legal

Re: SPDX-License-Identifier for composite-licensed source files

2019-12-12 Thread Kate Stewart
Hi Richard, I suspect the others will comment as well, but I would hope to see "SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0" as a summary. The second approach may become ambiguous to scanners as they may try to treat it as an "OR", and I believe that "AND" is truer to the intention

SPDX-License-Identifier for composite-licensed source files

2019-12-12 Thread Richard Fontana
Suppose you're dealing with the following source file legal notice (example taken from https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/permissive-code-into-mpl/, itself adapted from the examples discussed by SFLC in this old paper: