Hi,
great to see this direction of development.
This will are least clarify all the files which carry nothing expect the Marko
MODUL_LICENSE("GPL");
Because one of the interesting questions is "is this a legally binding
expression of licensing?"
Ciao
Oliver
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Hi Jilayne,
this "exception" defines in my Opinion the scope of the License as the
copyright owner sees it. I would handle this "excpetion" in the similar way
like the " Exception" of Linus Torvalds and of Uboot and of Jailhouse an all
the others.
Here the Exception of Linus Torvalds
NOTE!
Hi Team,
sorry for another question regarding SPDX and its mapping to the world.
From time to time you find additional statements from the copyright holders
regarding their view about the scope of the GPL. Since these are statements
from the copyright holders I regard them as relevant license
Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.commailto:opensou...@jilayne.com
On Jul 29, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Fendt, Oliver
oliver.fe...@siemens.commailto:oliver.fe...@siemens.com wrote:
Hi all,
sorry for the cryptic subject, but perhaps you can help me.
When doing package analysis with FOSSology or other
Hi all,
sorry for the cryptic subject, but perhaps you can help me.
When doing package analysis with FOSSology or other tools we often find files
which contain a license text (e.g. usually the file COPYING contains the text
of the GPL) my question is what kind of value has to be provided in
Hi Team,
I checked the license list because I was searching for the GNU Free
Documentation License 1.3 or any later version. I did not find an entry
GFDL-1.3+, due to that I checked the information provided under
http://spdx.org/licenses/GFDL-1.3
I found the text of the GFDL-1.3 and below the
...@microfocus.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 13:39
An: J Lovejoy
Cc: Fendt, Oliver; SPDX-legal
Betreff: RE: New license request
Hi Jilayne,
Thanks for pointing out the possible flexibility in the license list; Oliver,
thanks again for taking the time to submit this license. I'll
and which are in my
opinion _not_ OSD compliant. But I'm not a lawyer.
Regards
Oliver
Von: Philip Odence [mailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:39
An: Fendt, Oliver; Tom Incorvia; Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Betreff: Re: AW: New license
Hi all,
We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX license
list and I did not find it in the list licenses under consideration, due to
this I want to request that it will be included in the SPDX license list.
Please find below the required information for inclusion.
Hi,
As far as I under stood the standard one would express this kind of association
(file without license information - is assumed to be licensed under the
conluded license of the package) with the following elements on file level:
LicenseInfoInFile: NONE
License concluded: SPDX Identifier of
10 matches
Mail list logo