indication in
https://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html that the last line is
not actual part of the license text would be very helpful.
-- zvr –
From: Pedro Giffuni
Sent: Saturday, 26 May, 2018 06:40
To: Zavras, Alexios
Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: Re: Change in the FreeBSD
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
May I humbly suggest to add something to the line:
> "Version: 3.0 28 December 2017"
so that it reads like "Version: 3.0 - 28 December 2017" or "Version: 3.0
published 28 December 2017" or something because my eyes automatically read
version 3.0.28 ?
-- zvr -
-Original Message-
From: sp
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 –
From
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
versions).
Proposal withdrawn, all’s well.
-- zvr –
From: J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]
Sent: Thursday, 7 December, 2017 17:02
To: Zavras, Alexios
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: new GPL identifiers
HI Alexios,
I’m not sure why we need to do this, but I am strongly discouraging this
fu
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 Address
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 l
I think I understand Mark's reservations about package-level licenses and I
agree with them.
On previous instances of this same discussion (there have been a few ☺), it
seemed that there was a disconnect, which was mostly explained by what people
were considering when thinking about “packages
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 v
Hi Gary,
Quick remark:
On the license list page, the "Y" on the OSI-approved column appears
left-justified. The code is:
Y
The align attribute of is not supported in HTML5; use CSS instead.
Y
-- zvr -
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Beha
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: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.sp
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 “exce
At least, Mark, net-snmp includes a version number to the collection of
licenses!
The other well-known culprit is newlib, with its infamous “COPYING.NEWLIB”
(also a collection): https://sourceware.org/newlib/COPYING.NEWLIB
… which does not include any identifier for different versions.
[sorry fo
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 orde
Phil,
As it was explained in the bake-off: the disclaimer (second paragraph in the
license text shown in https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html) is all enclosed in
square brackets ("[...]"), and therefore was considered optional. The same
happens with some individual words ("and", "that", etc.) of
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 iso8859-1..
I suggest that we use an explicit identifier like "USGovPublicDomain" to name
the designation "This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to
copyright protection in the United States. Foreign rights may apply."
-- zvr
-Original Message-
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.
: Sam Ellis
Cc: Zavras, Alexios ; SPDX-legal
; Gary O'Neall
Subject: Re: SPDX License List v2.4 released
I’m removing the general list from this thread, as we can sort out via legal
team.
Gary - is this related to the issue you and Philippe noticed the other day due
to the new template??
Ji
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: Tuesday
Hi all, happy new year!
Just wanted to make sure the first item below is not forgotten.
I have seen the "same" text (with different names for attribution requirements)
at:
- Dom4j, e.g. http://dom4j.sourceforge.net/dom4j-1.6.1/license.html
- Jaxen, e.g.
https://confluence.sak
21 matches
Mail list logo
