C]E IN (.+)$/` for "some
other license", and started parking bikes.
Ideal in all respects? No, hardly. But note that
`UNLICENSE` is not a valid SPDX expression. The identifier
is `Unlicense`, mixed-case. npm's validation and correction
algorithms offer the correct values exactly.
--
Ky
18, at 2:43 AM, Guido Smeets <guido.sme...@empirion.nl> wrote:
>
> The only way (to my knowledge) to indicate that a piece of software is not
> licensed is to use the term "UNLICENSED" in the license.
> This is problematic because the unlicense exists, which does exactly t
The only way (to my knowledge) to indicate that a piece of software is not
licensed is to use the term "UNLICENSED" in the license.
This is problematic because the unlicense exists, which does exactly the
opposite.
Perhaps it's an idea to add "ALLRIGHTSRESERVED" as an
Has there been any thought or discussion on supporting this license in SPDX?
According to this post, it seems to be getting some traction on github.
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.law.unlicense
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:28 AM
To: Camille Moulin
Cc: SPDX Legal (spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org)
Subject: Re: The unlicense
Yes, it is on our on hold status for some reason, as there was some debate
about adding it. I also agree it should be on the list
