On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 05:36:45PM +0000, Marc Jones wrote: > Maybe I have missed it in the thread, but what are the terms the > "Verbatim" license would refer to?
It looks like you may have broken the thread with [1]. It initially started with [2], which has the formal proposal, including the license text. Richard pointed out an earlier flavor of the license [3], so my current proposal includes an <alt> section [4]. > Nonetheless FSF use to recommend the following "Verbatim Copying and > Distribution" licensing statement for use with works that express an > opinion: "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are > permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice > is preserved." [1] > … > [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#VerbatimCopying That's a different license, although the intent looks similar. I'm not sure why the FSF does not use that license for their GPL family, or why the LF decided to use the GPL verbatim language for the DCO [5]. I'm not clear on how we should namespace those two licenses, although we probably want them under separate entries. Maybe VerbatimGNU for the GPL's verbatim wording and VerbatimGNUWeb for the text you link? We can punt on a license identifier for the text you link for now (I'm not involved in any projects that need it ;), but I think we should have a guess at how we plan to namespace similar verbatim licenses in case we want to add identifiers for others in the future. > For example Facebook's React project provides the source code for > the library under a BSD copyright license [2] but the example code > under a non-FOSS license. [3] And the React documentation is under a > CC license [4]. And I think documenting that sort of thing is important. > As I said before though I continue to agree with other commenters that the > license of the license seems to me to be outside of the scope of SPDX. I don't see why you'd want to explicitly cover the code, examples, and docs but *not* cover local license files when working up SPDX for React. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-September/002161.html Subject: New license proposal: Verbatim Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 09:28:02 +0000 Message-ID: <caf3y9oigadg-mal-pux7obfqxnykzenwn_yoy5zcysy452t...@mail.gmail.com> [2]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-September/002156.html Subject: New license proposal: Verbatim Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:21:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20170907192143.gw4...@valgrind.tremily.us> [3]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-September/002158.html Subject: Re: New license proposal: Verbatim Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:41:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20170907204122.GA31923@clifford> [4]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-September/002160.html Subject: Re: New license proposal: Verbatim Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:43:59 -0700 Message-ID: <20170907224359.gz4...@valgrind.tremily.us> [5]: https://developercertificate.org/ -- 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
