Perhaps there's a need to treat the "license text" not as a single string, but as a set. E.G., "GPL-2.0+,preferred-form,link-exception".
--- David A. Wheeler -----Original Message----- From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:05 AM To: Wolfgang Denk; spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: RE: SPDX ID for GPL-2.0+ with addendum ? This look like the Guile license http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/docs-1.6/guile-ref/Guile-License.html michel.ruf...@alcatel-lucent.com, PhD Software Coordination Manager, N&P IS/IT Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France -----Message d'origine----- De : spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] De la part de Wolfgang Denk Envoyé : mercredi 22 janvier 2014 12:42 À : spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Objet : Re: SPDX ID for GPL-2.0+ with addendum ? Hello, I wrote: > I ran into a number of source files which include the standard > GPL-2.0+ license header, but augmented with the following addendum: > > For the avoidance of doubt the "preferred form" of this code is one which > is in an open non patent encumbered format. Where cryptographic key > signing > forms part of the process of creating an executable the information > including keys needed to generate an equivalently functional executable > are deemed to be part of the source code. > > I think we will need a new License tag for this, right? > > Do you have any suggestion for this? I found more "augmented" versions of GPL-2.0+ ; some libgcc files add this clause: In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs, and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked into a combined executable.) Others include this above addendum, and additionally this one: As a special exception, if you link this library with files compiled with GCC to produce an executable, this does not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. Is it correct to assume that we need special license tags for these two cases, too? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de G's Third Law: In spite of all evidence to the contra- ry, the entire universe is composed of only two basic substances: magic and bullshit. H's Dictum: There is no magic ... _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
