On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:01:32PM +, Zavras, Alexios wrote:
> Besides the case of GPL version numbers, isn't the issue similar to
> when we have cases like where you have a package that simply says
> "This program is under the BSD license"
This is definitely a similar case. The difference
Besides the case of GPL version numbers, isn't the issue similar to when we
have cases like where you have a package that simply says
"This program is under the BSD license"
The author "declared" something, but the SPDX spec is not really useful, since
the value of the field is a license (or a
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 09:44:21AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > I don't think any of the examples there have a declared package
> > license.
>
> I believe putting a copy of GPL in a repository is declaring a
> package license.
You may be able to make that argument in
W. Trevor King wrote:
> I don't think any of the examples there have a declared package license.
I believe putting a copy of GPL in a repository is declaring a package
license.
Also, note that given that GPL is a strong copyleft, the file licensing data
both matters less, and also can impact the
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
