Mark, You said 'A package is a “box of stuff” where some stuff may be related by linking while other stuff is not.' While I agree that is true, I am not sure I agree that dealing with it at a file level avoids many problems. For two reasons: 1) wheather lawyers and licensing nerds like it or not there is a huge amount of FOSS that has never had and will never have a licensing statement include in each file. And 2) The file doesn't play any special boundary in copyright law, at least not any more than one could argue any other method of organizing information on a computer does. You can have the same multi-license complications in a single file that are present in a multi-file package, Take for example a program composed of two files, one under the BSD license and one under a Apache license. What is the license of the combination? It is not clear, actually I don't think it is dictated in that case. Go ahead and cut and past the contents of one of those files into the other. Has your licensing gotten any more or less complicated? I think you are still left asking the question of what license the combined work is licensed under?
-Marc On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:47 PM W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 02:52:26PM +0000, Wheeler, David A wrote: > > Mark Gisi: > > > the SPDX identifier model will need to accommodate a LicenseRef > > > like mechanism... > > > > I'm not arguing to *remove* licenserefs, I agree they can be useful. > > > > My point is different. Since many users *only* use SPDX license > > expressions, it's important that SPDX license expressions have > > enough expressiveness (hah!) for common use cases WITHOUT using > > licencerefs. > > Agreed. I don't think anyone is arguing for removing LicenseRef. A > new ‘only’ operator allows you to express ‘CDDL-1.0 only’ as a vanilla > license expression where you currently need to use a LicenseRef, but > there are obviously lots of other LicenseRef use cases that an ‘only’ > operator will not replace. > > > > This is a far bigger problem than the "only" operator. In fact, it > > > is the ill- conceived package license concept that is creating > > > significant frustration and confusion over the GPL only issue. The > > > problem is not at the file level. The license expression syntax is > > > well suited for that. It is not well suited for the package > > > level. Until that is addressed we will continue to struggle. > > > > It's not ill-conceived. Package-level results are the WHOLE POINT. > > I don't know if I'd go as far as that; being able to drill down to > find the license for a particular file or snippet is useful too. But > I certainly don't see a reason why license expressions would not work > fine for projects given that they work fine for files; projects are > just collections of files. Similarly, files are collections of > snippets. SPDX license expressions can (and do?) allow to you state > the license terms of any work, regardless of whether that work is a > snippet, file, project, distro, …. What the ‘only’ operator is about > is making vanilla license expressions (which do not reference custom > LicenseRefs and such) more expressive. That will help folks who are > restricted to vanilla license expressions, regardless of what they > happen to be licensing. > > Cheers, > Trevor > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
