On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > >> Note also that the license is not exactly spdx-BSD3 (it will not match >> the guideliness of SPDX because of the extra clause). So in a way, the >> SPDX license in this file is incorrect. > > I don't see what you mean here. If we remove the "ALTERNATIVELY" > part, the remainder of the license header matches exactly the BSD > 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License as listed at > http://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause#licenseText > > Or am I missing something?
That is exactly what I mean. You make the decision (based on your interpretation) to remove the extra clause. With that extra clause, the license is NOT spdx BSD-3 as defined today. If you modify the license statement, you are making an interpretation. So you have interpreted that LICENSE (with the embedded optional GPL clause) as an OR of BSD3 and GPLv2+. In my view the license in file is the one stated inside it (unmodified). The effective license is a BSD3 or GPLv2+. --daniel -- --dmg --- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
