Hi All,

Sam and I were discussing what to include (in the context of an SPDX document 
or generally for compliance with OSS used in a product) in terms of copyright 
notices and other “related” text one may find with a copyright notice.  For 
example, if you came across the following, would you provide the second line?

        # Copyright (C) 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
        # Written by Gary V. Vaughan, 2004\n",

In terms of the SPDX specification, the relevant parts of two sections on 
copyright notice (package and file sections) state:

        Identify the copyright holders of the package, as well as any dates 
present. This will be a free form text field extracted from 
        package information files. The options to populate      this field are 
limited to:
                (i) any text related to a copyright notice, even if not 
complete; 


If we take that literally, I’d say only the actual copyright holders is 
required (the first line), but one could interpret “any text related to a 
copyright notice” to include the second line.

If we are talking about license compliance, then we'd defer to the license. 
Although even then, we may be take either a thorough or minimal stance.  What I 
mean is that if the license requires reproducing the copyright notice, then we 
end up with the same question as above; the second line arguably isn’t part of 
the copyright notice (strict interpretation), but one may still decide to 
include it.  In any case, I don’t think including or not including the second 
line would hurt or help either way. 
 
If the license does not require the copyright notice explicitly for a binary 
redistribution (not all do), it still may not change the question.  I’d argue 
that good practice would be to collect and provide the copyright notice anyway, 
in which case, we are back to whether or not to also include the second line.  

I’d be curious to hear:
1) what other people think and do in practice
2) consider whether we want to clarify the wording in the specification in any 
way to be explicitly strict as to what should be included in that field or 
intentionally leave it to be interpreted with some discretion (for examples 
such as this).


Cheers,
Jilayne



_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Reply via email to