y452t...@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-lega
Trevor,
Maybe I have missed it in the thread, but what are the terms the "Verbatim"
license would refer to?
Is it intended to refer to a specific set of licensing terms or just a
category of possible explicit or implicit licensing statements? For example
the licensing terms for redistributing
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 04:38:57PM +, Andrew Katz wrote:
> My recollection is that Apache 2.0 is under Apache 2.0, also.
All explicitly-licensed licenses are going to eventually end up in
some sort of loop like this (although you could have an A → B → A…
cycle, etc.). Doesn't it seem like
ecommons.org/policies/#license
From: "Matija Šuklje" <mat...@suklje.name<mailto:mat...@suklje.name>>
To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:03:01 AM
Subject: Re: New license propos
Dne torek, 12. september 2017 ob 15:04:10 CEST je Richard Fontana napisal(a):
> Not to detract from your general point but Creative Commons has, admirably,
> placed CC0 under CC0. https://creativecommons.org/policies/#license
Neat! Good to know and thanks for digging this up :)
Also, re-reading
12, 2017 8:03:01 AM
Subject: Re: New license proposal: Verbatim
Disclaimer: I haven’t read the full thread and for now don’t intend to, unless
I get a compelling reason to. I apologise if this e-mail will repeat something
already said.
All I wanted to say about this is that if we go down that
Disclaimer: I haven’t read the full thread and for now don’t intend to, unless
I get a compelling reason to. I apologise if this e-mail will repeat something
already said.
All I wanted to say about this is that if we go down that rabbit hole, we will
evenutally end with the question what
is achieved by the use of a LicenseRef.
- Mark
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 7:07 AM
To: Marc Jones
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: GPLv2 - Github example (was: Re: New license proposal: Verbatim)
Hi
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:28:02AM +, Marc Jones wrote:
> It is not clear to me that it makes sense to say a code base is both
> GPLv2 and verbatim, simply because the text of the license is
> copyrighted and you do not have permission to modify the license
> text.
So let's replace “license”
Hi Marc,
Great analysis, and I will echo Jilayne's call for you not to feel like you
have to return to lurking. This is open-source, and to get to the best
solution, we need everyone with thoughtful analyses and arguments to come
forward.
With respect to the copyright in the text of a license
J Lovejoy:
> I think this may be solving a problem we don’t have. While you are precise
> here, I think the operative goal is to understand the license for the code...
I agree. I think the point of SPDX is to enable people to understand the
licenses of the software being used (or under
Hi Marc,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response to the examples set out to help
with the only-operator proposal. You are the first one to respond to this, and
I hope that others will also chime in here. Example 4 is indeed what we have
been struggling with and is a common example in
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:41:23PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Out of curiosity I searched a bit just now and found in the earliest
> extant GCC release, apparently from 1988, the license (GNU CC General
> Public License) has this slightly different meta-license:
>
> Copyright (C) 1987
Hi Trevor,
It took me a second, but now I see where you are going:
In my example, the text file with the license text of GPL-2.0 _is_ exactly that
- the text of the license (hence identifying it as such), however that is not
necessarily the license for the text of the license itself. Hence,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:28:07PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> It's not clear to if the Verbatim license is long enough to be
> copyrightably, but if it is I'd guess it's copyright 1989 by the FSF
> and self-licensed under the Verbatim license as a subset of the GPL
> 1.0 (unless someone can
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 12:21:43PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> There are also other works under that license, e.g. [4], which use the
> exact same language.
>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> …
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
