Thank you for this info.
If the last line is not part of the license, do you see any difference between
your license and the pure BSD-2-Clause one
(https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html)?
Please note that the wording appearing in red on the page is placeholders and
can be substituted in
I couldn’t join that meeting, but 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 field for GPL’s free bit.
-- zvr –
Since the authors seem to be in the email thread, may I please ask for a
version number to the exception(s) ?
Experience has shown that texts change and I’d rather avoid the case of W3C,
W3C-19980720, W3C-20150513, etc.
In SPDX names, I think we always use the singular “-exception”, even if the
withdrawn, all’s well.
-- zvr –
From: J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]
Sent: Thursday, 7 December, 2017 17:02
To: Zavras, Alexios <alexios.zav...@intel.com>
Cc: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
Subject: Re: new GPL identifiers
HI Alexios,
I’m not sure why we need to do t
Hi all,
May I humbly suggest that, in our new SPDX identifiers for the different cases
of GPL, we drop the ".0" ?
I mean, to have them like GPL-2-or-later, GPL-3-only, etc.
Obviously the new identifiers of LGPL-2.1 will keep the exact version.
-- zvr -
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered
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"
The author "declared" something, but the SPDX spec is not really useful, since
the value of the field is a license (or a
My engineering, non-legal view is that a license specifies:
* What you are allowed to do (permissions); and
* What you must do (obligations).
[excuse the non-legal naming]
I assume that a “modification” may add to or remove from both categories.
Is this what we want the texts to be used
In my understanding, the “bullet” element is a shorthand for “bulleted
paragraph”.
I would expect your example to be translated to
before
I am a bullet
After
which, rendered with defaults, would result in a blank line before and after
the list.
-- zvr -
From:
I agree with Jilayne, and this is also the reason I’d prefer to avoid the
“with” even in the long license title.
Of course, McCoy has also written some “pluggable” patent wording that could be
combined with other licenses in theory. If he wants to submit it to SPDX, maybe
this could be an
I think there has been a misunderstanding.
The "encoding" item on the agenda simply means that there is a proposal to
standardize on UTF-8 for the file format in which the XML version of the
licenses (in the SPDX master license repo) are stored.
As to what you should be looking for, in
Hi Gary and Jilayne,
I can't make it to the SPDX Legal call today, but I just want to report that
two licenses in the git repo are stored with wrong encoding (i.e., they're not
in utf-8).
I'm talking about OSL-2.1.txt and RPSL-1.0.txt in git.spdx.org/license-list.git.
Running
recode
To: Sam Ellis <sam.el...@arm.com>
Cc: Zavras, Alexios <alexios.zav...@intel.com>; SPDX-legal
<spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>; Gary O'Neall <g...@sourceauditor.com>
Subject: Re: SPDX License List v2.4 released
I’m removing the general list from this thread, as we can sort ou
This license is empty: http://spdx.org/licenses/NLOD-1.0.html
I assume because the reference (at least in the Excel file) is to "NLOD-1..txt"
instead of "NLOD-1.0.txt".
-- zvr
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent:
13 matches
Mail list logo
