On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:40:05PM +0000, Gisi, Mark wrote:
> I know that the following CDDL was discussed with respect to the
> “only” problem:
>
> * This file and its contents are supplied under the terms of the
> * Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL"), version 1.0.
> * You may only use this file in accordance with the terms of version
> * 1.0 of the CDDL.
>
> But this is handle by the LicenseRef construct (e.g.,
> LicenseRef-CDDL-1.0-only). Because this is not a common use of the
> CDDL-1.0, I prefer to encourage the software recipient/customer take
> an additional look which is achieved by the use of a LicenseRef.With the ‘only’ operator proposal [1], this situation can be represented by ‘CDDL-1.0 only’. There will no longer be a need for LicenseRef for that case, which is nice for folks looking to represent that license grant using only a vanilla licence expression. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal -- 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
