On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> No tool can guarantee that always determines if "or any later version"
> applies.
> Certainly not licensee, which is the tool used automatically by GitHub.
> Indeed, licensee generally only looks at the LICENSE file - it doesn't even
> *
; From: Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:26 AM
> To: Wheeler, David A
> Cc: g...@sourceauditor.com; W. Trevor King ; SPDX-legal
>
> Subject: Re: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update
> on
> only/o
Sorry for the long email, but I was asked for evidence... so I went and got
some.
David A. Wheeler:
> > The usual reason is because I'm trying to link Apache-2.0 licensed
> > code with other code, a non-problem for GPL-2.0+ but widely considered
> > a problem for
> > GPL-2.0 only. The Apache-2.0
David,
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> David A. Wheeler:
>> > To answer that question, "it's at least GPL-2.0, and might be more"
>> > s important information, and I think it's information that the SPDX
>> > license expression should include.
>
> Philippe Ombredanne [m
Trevor,
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 7:56 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:33:23PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote:
>> Many package managers use SPDX license expressions
>> to indicate the package license. E.g., NPM does:
>> https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json
>> by using
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> g...@sourceauditor.com [mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com]
>> David - I'm curious if the "OR-MAYBE" proposal solves the issue you are
>> raising as well.
>
> Yes, it does.
If most everyone were to agree to add this, I am reluctantly OK.
Techn
g...@sourceauditor.com [mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com]
> David - I'm curious if the "OR-MAYBE" proposal solves the issue you are
> raising as well.
Yes, it does.
--- David A. Wheeler
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.s
al-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-
> boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of W. Trevor King
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 10:56 PM
> To: Wheeler, David A
> Cc: SPDX-legal
> Subject: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update
on
> only/or later et
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:33:23PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> Many package managers use SPDX license expressions
> to indicate the package license. E.g., NPM does:
> https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json
> by using the "license:" field - which is *NOT* a SPDX license file.
> According
David A. Wheeler:
> > To answer that question, "it's at least GPL-2.0, and might be more"
> > s important information, and I think it's information that the SPDX
> > license expression should include.
Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com]
> Is this really important to know this fact in
David:
You are bringing good points. Here are my counter points:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> Philippe Ombredanne:
>> I think there is no contention there at all.
>
> Respectfully: There *IS* contention. I'm contending.
>
>> A summary (e.g. a license expression) can
Philippe Ombredanne:
> I think there is no contention there at all.
Respectfully: There *IS* contention. I'm contending.
> A summary (e.g. a license expression) cannot ever capture all the nuances
> of the details This is a lossy "compression" by construction...
Sure, but all summaries,
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:45:10AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> A license detection result can be: "I am 95% sure this is
> GPL-2.0-only but it could be GPL-2.0+: please review me to fill in
> your conclusion."
>
> So detection does not have to be binary as in either 100% right or
> 100% wr
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]:
>> If this is a potential problem once GPL-2.0 is changed to GPL-2.0-only, then
>> it is currently a problem.
>
> Yes indeed, that's my point :-).
>
>> And perhaps by altering the current identifi
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:51 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> 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 lic
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
J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]:
> If this is a potential problem once GPL-2.0 is changed to GPL-2.0-only, then
> it is currently a problem.
Yes indeed, that's my point :-).
> And perhaps by altering the current identifier (GPL-2.0) to be more explicit
> (GPL-2.0-only) we will expose
> On Nov 17, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
>
> J Lovejoy:
>
>> Do NOT add a identifier or operator, etc. for the found-license-text-only
>> scenario where you don’t know if the intent of the copyright holder was
>> “only or “or later” and are thus left to interpret clause
>
> I
t; From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-
> boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wheeler, David A
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:20 PM
> To: brad.edmond...@gmail.com
> Cc: SPDX-legal
> Subject: RE: update on only/or later etc.
>
> Brad Edmondson [mailto:b
Brad Edmondson [mailto:brad.edmond...@gmail.com]
> I think your points are good ones, but it seems to me they go to the separate
> issues of "file:detected license" and "package:concluded license."
> The clarity of the spec argument is aimed at making the "file:detected
> license" case more exp
J Lovejoy writes:
> Hi All,
>
> Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to try and
> come to a resolution everyone can be happy with, taking into
> consideration the ask from the FSF and the many thorough discussions
> we’ve had on the mailing list and calls. This is similar t
Hi David,
I think your points are good ones, but it seems to me they go to the
separate issues of "file:detected license" and "package:concluded license."
The clarity of the spec argument is aimed at making the "file:detected
license" case more explicit, and if it leaves tools with NOASSERTION fo
J Lovejoy:
> Do NOT add a identifier or operator, etc. for the found-license-text-only
> scenario where you don’t know if the intent of the copyright holder was “only
> or “or later” and are thus left to interpret clause
I disagree, sorry.
> - we don’t need to solve this right now and we can a
Jilayne Lovejoy :
> Do NOT add a identifier or operator, etc. for the found-license-text-only
> scenario where you don’t know if the intent of the copyright holder was “only
> or “or later” and are thus left to interpret clause 9
This "resolution" doesn't solve the problem.
Since tools are not
Great. We will start calling you two Kings Solomon.
From: on behalf of Jilayne Lovejoy
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 7:38 PM
To: SPDX-legal
Subject: update on only/or later etc.
Hi All,
Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to try and come to
a resolution
ow:
> -Original Message-
> From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-
> boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of W. Trevor King
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:53 PM
> To: J Lovejoy
> Cc: SPDX-legal
> Subject: Re: update on only/or later etc.
>
>
ts.spdx.org [spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org]
> on behalf of J Lovejoy [opensou...@jilayne.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:37 PM
> To: SPDX-legal
> Subject: update on only/or later etc.
>
> Hi All,
>
> Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to tr
.
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] on
behalf of J Lovejoy [opensou...@jilayne.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:37 PM
To: SPDX-legal
Subject: update on only/or later etc.
Hi All,
Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to
forward to revisiting those issues in the future.
Paul
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: SPDX-legal
Subject: update on only/or later etc.
Hi All,
Kate and I just had a call
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’ since
Hi All,
Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to try and come to
a resolution everyone can be happy with, taking into consideration the ask from
the FSF and the many thorough discussions we’ve had on the mailing list and
calls. This is similar to an approach we discussed o
31 matches
Mail list logo
