Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 06:16:56PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > Back to the Short Identifier additions are: characters, given the > various feedback on this thread, here is an updated suggestion. I'm fine with this proposal going out as you have it, but I've put a few suggestions inline in case you

Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:28:11PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > • Short identifiers must not be duplicative: newly added short > identifiers will be checked to ensure they are different from all > pre-existing short identifiers, regardless of upper/lower case Wherever we put this commitment, I

Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:05:31AM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote: > FWIW, it is the perspective the Eclipse Foundation that, from the > point of view of a consumer, the notion of secondary license is > effectively the same as dual licensing. We therefore encourage our > projects to use the disjunctive

Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:46:26PM +0200, Till Jaeger via Spdx-legal wrote: > EPL-2.0 exists in two forms as well (with or without Exhibit A > making it compatible to the GPL). My understanding is that the recommended approach is to use OR [1], e.g.: EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH

Re: Last call for version 3.1 website review

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:48:07PM -0500, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > Please let me know if you know of any issues with the preview > website that could potentially hold up the release. I'd really like to have obsoletedBy exposed [1] to downstream consumers. For example, obsolete-license

Re: Past and preview License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:04:05PM -0400, Brad Edmondson wrote: > I'm in favor of solving this (making html available for old versions > of the license list). I think it will help with adoption too, > especially as we move back to a more frequent release cadence. > > Perhaps add to the errata

Re: Past and current License List releases

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 02:55:22PM -0500, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > I probably won't have time to get this working before 3.1… Is this an argument for moving the archives out of “admin-only WordPress activity” and into a public Git repository/branch (like [1])? That way non-admins can

Past and current License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > An alternative would be to use an ISO 8601 to express time. > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 > > Version: 3.0 published on 2017-12-28 > > Version: 3.0 of 2017-12-28 +1 to using ISO dates. It would also be nice to be

Past and preview License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:14:03PM -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > We are pushing new versions of the license lists but we are NOT > keeping online the previous versions. They are only in git repos. > I think it would help a lot adopters to have all the versions (at > least starting with 2.6

Re: 3.1 release

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:28:57PM -0400, Steve Winslow wrote: > Apologies for any confusion from submitting as a separate PR, I'm > not sure how to modify or add commits to the existing PR at #551... You can stack your commits on top of the original PR's branch and then set that branch as the

Re: New License/Exception Request: Qt-LGPL-exception-1.1

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:39:54PM +, Kai Koehne wrote: > Short-name: Qt-exception-LGPL-1.1 I've filed a pull request implementing this [1], although I went with the short ID from your subject instead of the one I'm quoting here (more on why in the PR). Cheers, Trevor [1]:

Re: PRs v. Issues for new licenses/exceptions

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:54:01PM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote: > Its currently just asking for an email on > https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license I think the canonical docs should be in-repo [1] and that external docs should link there. Folks are unlikely to create an issue/PR

Re: Update FAQ after license list 3.0

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:53:41AM +0100, Matija Šuklje wrote: > I was browsing through the FAQ and found out that since we > (re)renamed the GPL family in license list 3.0, we haven’t updated > the texts in the FAQ yet. +1 on updating the FAQ. I think we also want to explicitly list the spec

FSF status for FSF licenses (was: meeting minutes)

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:21:21PM +, Zavras, Alexios wrote: > … on the subject of FSF “free” field: let’s make sure that FSF’s own > licenses (GPL*, LGPL*, GFDL*, etc.) are marked as “free”. I think > their site lists only licenses by others, but our table seems… > strange having an empty

Re: JPNIC / BIND license text - not quite Sendmail

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 11:01:03AM -0800, Dennis Clark wrote: > Others may disagree (naturally) but I think the license notice > matches the SPDX "Apache-1.1" license. There are numerous differences vs. our Apache-1.1 template. For example, the JNIC license [1] does not include Apache-1.1's

Re: Documenting the Pull Request process

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:36:30AM -0800, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > At some point, these issues will likely turn into a pull request > created by someone quite familiar with the current license XML > format. There currently isn't much documentation on the specifics > for the pull request

Re: Proposed addition to the license matching guidelines

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:20:54AM -0800, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > If we were to update the license matching guidelines to explicitly > ignore these, the tools could skip them without having to add the > alt and/or optional tags to the license XMLs. Alt/optional aren't all that difficult,

Re: SPDX License List 3.0 is now live!

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 03:26:47PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > Aww man, you've got to be kidding? You got rid of the "+" signifier > and now we have to write out words?! > > I really don't like this change. It makes things more verbose for no > benefit. This issue has seen a a lot of discussion

Re: License list release 2.7 or 3.0? (was: update on license list release)

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 02:27:19PM -0500, Brad Edmondson wrote: > We discussed on the Dec. 7 call and landed on 3.0 -- I think partly > because the spec was leaning toward 3.0 as well… Are we planning on breaking backwards compat with the spec? That would be fun for me when I'm wearing my

License list release 2.7 or 3.0? (was: update on license list release)

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:44:44PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > A handful of us have been working away on the 3.0 release of the > SPDX License List. I think this can be a 2.7 release, with 3.0 to follow if/when some currently-deprecated identifiers are finally dropped. Are there any breaking

Re: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:17:22PM -0800, Gary O'Neall wrote: > > binary-confidence-expression-operator = "AND" > > confidence-expression = license-expression space "CONFIDENCE" space "0." > > 1*DIGIT > > confidence-list = confidence-expression *(space confidence-expression) > > [space

Re: "unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:51:27PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote: > [2]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002317.html > Subject: Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX > Date: > Message-ID: <20171109195414.ga11...@valgrind.us> > … >

"unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators (was: update on only/or later etc.)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:10:02AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Just a reminder to all: when someone places a copy of the GPL, > version 2 alongside source code files this does not make the > licensing ambiguous; clearly there is a valid license… > > Any scenario you could interpret, we have a way to

Re: update on only/or later etc.

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:37:50PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Deprecate the "GPL-2.0" identifier and add the word “only” for GPL > version 2 only, e.g., "GPL-2.0-only" > - this should not be problematic as it does not change the meaning > of the identifier. GPL-2.0 has meant ‘version 2 only’

Re: Jilayne Lovejoy invited you to “SPDX tech/legal call”.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:56:00PM +, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > UID:F31FBFD4-9300-4B60-BEC6-81CB9A3EFDCD > DESCRIPTION:Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam\n Optional > dial in number: 415-881-1586\n No PIN needed > SEQUENCE:0 > SUMMARY:SPDX tech/legal call >

Partial conclusions and ambiguous grants (was: only/or later and the goals of SPDX)

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 01:55:55PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > On Nov 9, 2017, at 12:54 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:12:39PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > >> The ambiguous operator (first floated as “unclear version” in > >> [3]) and my OR-

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:31:07AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses And they have an official position on the javierwilson/tonto case, where the GPL-3.0 text is in LICENSE, but no other file in the repository contains copyright or licensing

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:19:31AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > I think that whatever is done on the SPDX side to be > precise vs. being accurate-enough and good-enough will unlikely ever > be adopted as the magnitude of the education and changes required > would be immense… Backwards

Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata

y identical to the OSI MIT license and also does not match the > SPDX license "MIT", but does match the SPDX license "X11". They also list the Expat license as free and GPL-compatible [5], and it matches the SPDX MIT [6]. So you can say the FSF considers the SPDX MIT free and GPL

Re: Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:33:18PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Gary O'Neall [mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com]: > > If we have more than one line for a compound set of licenses, it > > would be ambiguous if the text following the first line of a > > compound license is part of the license

Re: Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:08:28PM -0700, Gary O'Neall wrote: > The current definition for a file license expression allows for more than one > line: > "... The SPDX License Identifier syntax may consist of a single > license (represented by a short identifier from the SPDX license > list) or a

Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation? (was: signifigance of nested parenthesis with only ORs?)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 06:21:05PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > The section you want to consult is SPDX specification version 2.1, > Appendix IV ("SPDX License Expressions"): > https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60 > > Subsection "Composite License Expressions"

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:44:54AM -0400, John Sullivan wrote: > I understand SPDX doesn't want to make legal judgments. Which is > why it should indicate when there is uncertainty. While SPDX should avoid making legal judgements, I don't think it necessarily follows that they need to enable

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:13:56PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > But this missed a key part of the core goals of SPDX: Implicit in > those above goals is that the SPDX License List (including the > license short identifiers and the license expression language) aim > to provide a “language” to identify

Re: Meeting times and daylight savings

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:48:17PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:29:41PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > > What do you need to make this happen - a new repo in the SPDX > > Github account to store the ICS file(s)? Name for such repo? > > We could d

Meeting times and daylight savings (was: reminder: call Thursday)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:49:46PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > This is a reminder for our call tomorrow (Thursday) at the usual > time: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team With the first Sunday in November [1] in the not terribly-distant future, I was curious about how that page's: … every

Re: "unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:43:46PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > W. Trevor King: > > > ? = “unclear version” - this will be a new modifier to indicate > > > there is a lack of clarity as to the license version regarding > > > if any version, or later,

Re: [v2] New license proposal: GPLVerbatim (was: GNUVerbatim)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:30:21PM -0400, John Sullivan wrote: > Wary of confusion here. There is a license called the GNU Verbatim > Copying License, see: > > > Its text is: "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article >

"unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators (was: reminder: call Thursday)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:49:46PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > Kate and I have discussed our last proposal (which was summarized > here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal) > with Richard Stallman and John Sullivan as to concerns the FSF, as > steward of the GNU licenses,

Git's COPYING preface (was: [v2] New license proposal: GNUVerbatim)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:26:10PM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:15 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > I have a repository that contains two files with content under the > > GNUVerbatim license [1,2] (as well as some content by Linus, > > presumably under t

[v2] New license proposal: GNUVerbatim

Discussion spawned by my v1 Verbatim proposal [1] seems to have died down, so here's a v2. Changes since v1: * Renamed from ‘Verbatim’ to ‘GNUVerbatim’ to allow for other verbatim names in the future (e.g. if someone wants to register [2] as GNUVerbatimWeb [3] or wants to register non-GNU

Re: Package licensing part I - the approach - was Github example

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:02:00AM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > How does one define “accurate and complete” when a package’s “top > level” license does not represent all the files contained within the > package (think license diversity). Although there was no standard > agreement on what “accurate

EPL-2.0 final text (was: meeting tomorrow, general update)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:10:44PM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote: > Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice > > "This Source Code may also be made available under the following > Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth > in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:19:04AM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> 3.15 Declared License > > The problem with this field does not lie with the LEL but with the values the > "field" will accept. > > "This field lists the licenses that have been declared by the > authors of The package.

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense (was: GPLv2 - Github example)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:01:32PM +, Zavras, Alexios wrote: > Besides the case of GPL version numbers, isn't the issue similar to > when we have cases like where you have a package that simply says > "This program is under the BSD license" This is definitely a similar case. The difference

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense (was: GPLv2 - Github example)

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 ab

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

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

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense (was: GPLv2 - Github example)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:47:25AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > I began to think carefully about this question, what *is* the "Declared > License" -- by the package authors -- in the examples at > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal#Examples_.2F_Challenges I don't

Re: Package licensing part I - the approach - was Github example

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:07:52AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > The other SPDX is the use of something that *superficially* looks > like SPDX-conformant license expressions to describe licensing in a > way that is, I guess, outside the intended scope of SPDX. Examples > of this nonconformant

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 05:36:45PM +, Marc Jones wrote: > Maybe I have missed it in the thread, but what are the terms the > "Verbatim" license would refer to? It looks like you may have broken the thread with [1]. It initially started with [2], which has the formal proposal, including the

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 04:38:57PM +, Andrew Katz wrote: > My recollection is that Apache 2.0 is under Apache 2.0, also. All explicitly-licensed licenses are going to eventually end up in some sort of loop like this (although you could have an A → B → A… cycle, etc.). Doesn't it seem like

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 02:52:26PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Mark Gisi: > > the SPDX identifier model will need to accommodate a LicenseRef > > like mechanism... > > I'm not arguing to *remove* licenserefs, I agree they can be useful. > > My point is different. Since many users *only* use

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:26:56PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> But you can't define a LicenseRef in sitations (like npm [1]) where the > >> only > >> thing you can set is a license expression and you don't have access to the > >> broader > >> SPDX spec. > >> [1]:

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:04:57PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> With the ‘only’ operator proposal [1], this situation can be > >> represented by ‘CDDL-1.0 only’. > > … Finally this case can be elegantly handled with a LicenseRef… But you can't define a LicenseRef in sitations (like npm [1])

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:40:05PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > I know that the following CDDL was discussed with respect to the > “only” problem: > > * This file and its contents are supplied under the terms of the > * Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL"), version 1.0. > * You may

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:28:02AM +, Marc Jones wrote: > It is not clear to me that it makes sense to say a code base is both > GPLv2 and verbatim, simply because the text of the license is > copyrighted and you do not have permission to modify the license > text. So let's replace “license”

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:41:23PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Out of curiosity I searched a bit just now and found in the earliest > extant GCC release, apparently from 1988, the license (GNU CC General > Public License) has this slightly different meta-license: > > Copyright (C) 1987

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 12:21:43PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > There are also other works under that license, e.g. [4], which use the > exact same language. > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this > license document, but changing it is not al

New license proposal: Verbatim

While reviewing [1], I noticed: 1 text file with license text of GPL-2.0 = GPL-2.0 That makes sense if we're talking about the estimated project license, but the license for the GPL-2.0 content itself (which would go in the *file's* LicenseConcluded [2]) for the is “verbatim copies only” [3].

Re: minutes, summary, next steps

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Gary wrote: > > > > Will that be: > > > > > > > > a. GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only > > > > > > The "ONLY" would be an operator, so I'd expect to see: (GPL-2.0 > > > ONLY OR GPL-3.0 ONLY) > > > > That's certainly possible as well, and it would be easier to

Re: minutes, summary, next steps

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 06:00:22PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > W. Trevor King: > > Is this proposal different from [1]? The only think I can see is that the > > old > > “GPL-2.0 by itself is unclear” issue is now being explicitly embraced > > (while [1] > &g

Re: New License Request: FB-Patents-2.0

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:53:47AM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Based on feedback from W. Trevor King (thank you!!), here is round 2. Cross-linking round 1 [1]. > Here I propose this Facebook rider as a new *license* instead of > separate license *exception*… I had proposed the na

Re: New License/Exception Request: ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 06:22:37PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > As far as I can tell SPDX currently has no way to report this > information. There's some previous discussion in [1,2]. The current recommendation is to define a custom ID for the patent rider and use that [3], for example:

Re: Your license: full name and identifier - BSD-2-Clause-Patent?

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:51:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > But in that case, I think there needs to be a *speedy* assignment > (hah!) of a SPDX license id/expression to the React.js license. There's some previous discussion of that license in [1,2]. Cheers, Trevor [1]:

Re: joint call legal/tech team - Tuesday, Aug 8

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:54:34PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > There is a summary of the background and issue here: > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation I've spend some time today using my new wiki account to shuffle things around there and on [1]. If it's

Version the matching guidelines

The spec currently links to the matching guidelines by guideline number. For example, [1]: type: indicates whether the text is replaceable or omitable as per Matching Guideline #2 (“Substantive Text”). That seems brittle with the guidelines unversioned. For example, that reference will

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:53:05PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:44:45AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > > The only difference that turned up in the license text is: > > > > Copyright [-©-]{+(C)+} 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. &

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:12:54AM -0700, Gary wrote: > I feel we need another tool to compare text to a specific SPDX > license and indicate exactly where the 2 licenses do not match. Having this be part of the online tool would be great. But a quick-and-dirty way to accomplish this is to use

Re: SPDX full names of GPL family licenses

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:24:20PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Traditionally of course (I mean outside of SPDX) the full name of > that sort of license would have been something like "GNU Lesser > General Public License version 2.1 or any later version", i.e. the > "only" would of course only

Re: Your license: full name and identifier

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 01:27:23PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > I created a redirect so that now both > https://opensource.org/BSDplusPatent and > https://opensource.org/BSD-2-Clause-Patent both go to > https://opensource.org/node/865/ (or something functionally equivalent > to that). More

Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 12:23:43PM +, Phil Odence wrote: > The SPDX License List includes a list of Exceptions. These > Exceptions are commonly-granted permissions beyond those normally > granted in a license. (They are not stand-alone licenses.) > Exceptions are added to a license using the

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 05:29:52PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > > So basically “use an exception when the author asks for it, > > otherwise use a new license”. > > Typically the "WITH" clauses are for a separate fragment of text > that can be added to the "end" of a base license as a "rider".

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:39:21AM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > This would not be treated as an exception because it was drafted > (and submitted to the OSI) as a complete license, not as an > exception or separate, add-able text to BSD-2-Clause. While you > raise a good point about the potential

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:57PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > Following our existing pattern for variations on BSD (listed below > for reference), we might want to consider: > Full name: BSD 2-clause plus Patent (could also be BSD 2-Clause with > Patent - as the use of with in the full name is not

Re: [spdx-tech] various threads on "only" suffix (for GPL)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 03:15:44PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > J Lovejoy: > > Thanks Bradley. Your point re: other licenses building in a de > > facto “or later” clause versus the GPL family of licenses leaving > > the choice to the copyright holders is exactly the thing I wanted > > to

Re: extra field for license exceptions

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 03:58:38PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > In the course of implementing the license expression syntax and > deciding to put license exceptions in their own sub-list, we thought > we might as well be thorough about it, and a few brave souls set > about to find as many license

Re: extra field for license exceptions

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 02:18:55PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Information related to who, when, how, why a license or exception > was requested to be added is maintained here: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 > for

Re: extra field for license exceptions

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:41:50AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > The license exceptions have an “extra” field that we don’t use for > the licenses, which is “Example of Use”. I think this is from info > we captured when collecting exceptions to add to the list. Potentially more useful information