Gisi, Mark [mailto:mark.g...@windriver.com]:
> My main concern is: if we don't choose a sufficiently expressive syntax, and
> end up losing information, then we will have done more damage to SPDX than
> good. It needs to represent NOTICES and not just a single license.
Fair enough.
I very much
Dear Mark,
In message <01813e194c768044a6486db30b5338ccb711e...@ala-mba.corp.ad.wrs.com>
you wrote:
>
> Example 1:
> --
> File: ./cairo-1.10.2.tar.gz.txt/cairo-array.c (see attachment 1)
> NOTICE (simplified): "The file is licensed to you under either the LGPL-2.1
> or MPL-1.1 at your o
Dear David,
In message <9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1a8054aa...@exch07-4850.ida.org> you
wrote:
>
> SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 OR MPL-1.1
...
> In general, we all want both simplicity (so people will USE it) and
> expressiveness (so it can be USEFUL). The trick is getting there...
I d
2013 11:58 AM
To: Wheeler, David A
Cc: SPDX-legal; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-biz; d...@uvic.ca
Subject: Re: meta-tag page - part II
Dear David,
In message <9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1a8054aa...@exch07-4850.ida.org>
you wrote:
>
> SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 OR MPL-1.1
...
Dear Gary,
In message <001f01cec2e5$9f1d9b20$dd58d160$@com> you wrote:
>
> The "AND" situation would occur if you have a file which contains code from
> two or more different sources using two or more different licenses. In that
> case, I believe you would need to satisfy the obligations of all
Wolfgang> Dear David,
Wolfgang> In message
<9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1a8054aa...@exch07-4850.ida.org> you wrote:
>>
>> SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 OR MPL-1.1
Wolfgang> ...
>> In general, we all want both simplicity (so people will USE it) and
>> expressiveness (so it can be
7, 2013 4:42 AM
To: Gary O'Neall
Cc: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; 'SPDX-legal'; 'SPDX-biz'; 'Wheeler, David A';
d...@uvic.ca
Subject: Re: meta-tag page - part II
Dear Gary,
In message <001f01cec2e5$9f1d9b20$dd58d160$@com> you wrote:
>
> The "
Gisi, Mark twisted the bytes to say:
>>> SPDX-License-Notice: This file is licensed under the following
license(s):
>>> SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
>>> SPDX-License-More-Information: http://wiki.spdx.org/
Mark> One aspect of SPDX we struggle with is its relatively weak
Mark> suppor
the same SPDX package or file.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:42 AM
To: Gary O'Neall
Cc: 'Wheeler, David A'; 'SPDX-legal'; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; 'SPDX-biz';
d...@uvic.ca
Subject: Re:
Dear Daniel,
In message <87ob71qey8@mn.cs.uvic.ca> you wrote:
>
> Wolfgang> Also, in the interest of easy processing of the license tags, I
> wouls
> Wolfgang> like to propse that multiple licenses in a list are separated by
> white
> Wolfgang> space only - no "OR", no commas, nor any ot
Dear Gary,
In message <002f01cec378$2f2a3470$8d7e9d50$@com> you wrote:
>
> If there is no conflict in license terms, however, I do not see an issue
> in using this approach. I run across a large volume of MIT style and BSD
> style licenses mixed in with GPL code, for example. Using "AND'd"
> lic
Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]:
> But this example doesn't work either. If you mix a license that allows
> "modify and keep the modified code closed" with GPL, the only legally
> possible result is GPLed code.
> I see little value in constructing such more or less artificial examples.
This
Dear David,
In message <9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1a8054ab...@exch07-4850.ida.org> you
wrote:
>
> Note this comment:
> # Except as otherwise marked, this code is licensed under the "MIT license".
> # However, the "override" code that patches clisp is derived
> # from clisp, which is GPLv2.
>
Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]
> But there there is no actual choice. Yes, you take the parts of the project
> that do not include the GPL code - and you can use this code under the MIT
> license for other purposes. But as soon as we talk about the thing as a
> whole (say, the linked bin
Wolfgang Denk wrote at 04:42 (EDT):
> the files are now licensed under GPL-2.0, i. e. the "or later" option
> had to be dropped for the file as a whole, because it was not
> available for the parts imported from Linux.
Files aren't copyright-magical-single-units. Nothing in the copyright
statute
15 matches
Mail list logo
