On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 02:18:55PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Information related to who, when, how, why a license or exception > was requested to be added is maintained here: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 > for purposes of tracking while a license is under review. Once it’s > added to the list, it’s added. We have never included any such > information related to the original request to add in any of the > fields that make up the SPDX License List, and I don’t see any > reason to start now. ??
Because the original request includes the “Example of Use” information you're currently putting in the ‘extra’ field. For example, the Open CASCADE row includes links to both [1] (for the OCCT-PL license) and [2] (for the OCCT-exception-1.0 exception) and both of those were in the original mailing-list request [3]. Since the original request contains *additional* information beyond the example consumers (submission date, occasionally the license author, …), I think linking to the submission thread is a better approach than linking to examples. That also gets you off the hook for maintaining these consumer references, which presumably bit-rot after the initial submission (although the Open CASCADE links still work at the moment). Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://www.opencascade.com/content/occt-public-license [2]: https://www.opencascade.com/content/licensing [3]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-October/001519.html -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
