Wolfgang,
I liked Bradley's suggestion for syntax of the one-liner because it was
also short, but slightly more explicit about the intention. I agree that
an explanation in a readme could make this clear, but I think we are
trying to handle the case when the file might turn up in another project
If I follow your argument, this code would now be covered by a GPL-2.0+ AND
GPL-2.0 license construct. This is obviously absurd: I cannot both include
and exclude the or later option simultaneously.
Why not? I'm thinking you can under GPLv2 as it applies to this entire file. As
to whether
Gisi, Mark twisted the bytes to say:
SPDX-License-Notice: This file is licensed under the following
license(s):
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
SPDX-License-More-Information: http://wiki.spdx.org/
Mark One aspect of SPDX we struggle with is its relatively weak
Mark support for
David Dmg:
Following this rational, would it be possible to recommend something in the
line of:
BEGIN_LICENSE
This file is licensed under the SPDX_LICENSE_IDENTIFIER
For more information see URL-TO-SPDX-WEB-SITE-WITH-iNFO
END_LICENSE
that makes three things explicit:
* It
Hi Wolfgang,
I agree that if a conflict in licenses exist (as in your example) you cannot
just AND the licenses together since that leads to conflicting terms. IMO
you are taking the right approach in resolving the conflict and recording a
non-conflicting license in the file.
If there is no
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote:
The approach the U-Boot project has taken here attempts to support
Strong Compliance while at the same time getting rid of redundant
information to the extend possible:
- The file Licenses/README contains the project-global
Dear Gary,
In message 002f01cec378$2f2a3470$8d7e9d50$@com you wrote:
If there is no conflict in license terms, however, I do not see an issue
in using this approach. I run across a large volume of MIT style and BSD
style licenses mixed in with GPL code, for example. Using AND'd
licenses is
I said:
David From a programmer's perspective I think the cryptic approach is FAR
superior. There are lots of tools that can quickly examine files and return
text with the pattern SPDX-License-Identifier: , and other tools that can
trivially process the stuff after it. The above alternative
Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]
But there there is no actual choice. Yes, you take the parts of the project
that do not include the GPL code - and you can use this code under the MIT
license for other purposes. But as soon as we talk about the thing as a
whole (say, the linked
Wolfgang Denk wrote at 04:42 (EDT):
the files are now licensed under GPL-2.0, i. e. the or later option
had to be dropped for the file as a whole, because it was not
available for the parts imported from Linux.
Files aren't copyright-magical-single-units. Nothing in the copyright
statute
Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 01:07 (EDT) on Thursday:
yes, I actually agree. I have long thought that the short identifiers
would be better served as: GPL-2.0+ and GPL-2.0-only
I could live with that, although the .0 makes no sense there, IMO, and I
really do like the format that FSF standardized
11 matches
Mail list logo
