On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:02:00AM +, Gisi, Mark wrote:
> How does one define “accurate and complete” when a package’s “top
> level” license does not represent all the files contained within the
> package (think license diversity). Although there was no standard
> agreement on what “accurate
rg<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:13:51 AM
Subject: Package licensing part I - the approach - was Github example
How to move forward:
It appears we have not collectively agreed on what the problem is. I believe
this is because there are at lea
to understand the disconnect.
That is always the right first step.
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Mitchell
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 12:02 PM
To: Richard Fontana
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: Package licensing part I
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,
ot;Mark Gisi" <mark.g...@windriver.com>
To: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:13:51 AM
Subject: Package licensing part I - the approach - was Github example
How to move forward:
It appears we have not collectively agreed
How to move forward:
It appears we have not collectively agreed on what the problem is. I believe
this is because there are at least two different stakeholders expressing two
different sets of requirements for the License Expression Language (LEL).
Stakeholder 1 (Traditional): Linux
