On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:47:25AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I began to think carefully about this question, what *is* the "Declared
> License" -- by the package authors -- in the examples at
> https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal#Examples_.2F_Challenges
I don't
Thanks to both Richard and Kyle for very helpful posts. Ditto on Kyle's
recognition of the amazing work of so many people on this project.
I confess that I am still thrilled to see any embrace of the SPDX license
expressions by developers. I have said many times over the course of many
years
Since the Legal call where we first began discussing what Jilayne has called
the "Github examples", I've been thinking about this question regularly.
I do agree wholeheartedly with Richard Fontana's point that SPDX both has
stakeholders who use the license identifiers outside of SPDX (and that
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:07:52AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> The other SPDX is the use of something that *superficially* looks
> like SPDX-conformant license expressions to describe licensing in a
> way that is, I guess, outside the intended scope of SPDX. Examples
> of this nonconformant
My first order of business here is to reaffirm my
gratitude to the stalwarts of the SPDX team. A
frankly staggering amount of work and thought has
gone into this and other lists over the years, and
a very nice portion of that has settled its way
out into various outputs---spec, license list,
Just a comment, which seems to resonate with some of what you are saying and
expresses something I've been struggling with for a while:
As (mostly) an intentionally-not-watching-too-closely bystander wrt SPDX, for
some time I've realized that SPDX means at least two different things. There is
