On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:48 AM Till Jaeger via lists.spdx.org
wrote:
>
> Dear Steve and list members,
>
> In my opinion it is a good idea to add the license text of the GPL-3.0 to the
> SPDX license information.
>
> The simple reason is that the text that pretends to be the LGPL-3.0 license
>
Dear Steve and list members,
In my opinion it is a good idea to add the license text of the GPL-3.0 to the
SPDX license information.
The simple reason is that the text that pretends to be the LGPL-3.0 license
text isn't complete : "This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License
incorpor
Thanks Alan, Max and Alexios for your thoughts. A couple of responses
inline below:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:55 AM Alexios Zavras
wrote:
> . . .
>
>
> Therefore I am not confident we should do a change to such a well-known
> text as LGPLv3 to support “use [a single] plain text license file as
Thinking about it more generally, I think the issue stems from the assumption
that “one license == one file”. I am not sure everyone should rely on this
being true in all cases.
For the SPDX License List, where we care about license texts and identifying
(matching) them, we were OK till now, by
Steve, thank you so much for summarising the discussion, and the Legal
Team for working on the topic. I regret that I did not join the call,
but from what I see you basically got everything covered anyway.
~ Steve Winslow [2022-01-10 22:33 +0100]:
> * The license-list-XML repo includes plain text
