Hi Markus,
Referring to Appendix IV: SPDX License Expressions in
https://spdx.org/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/spdxversion2.1.pdf, then
SPDX allows for custom licenses to be named in the format LicenseRef-XXX where
XXX is whatever you want to call your license. You could use this to
Hi,
this idea was inspired by
https://github.com/NuGet/Home/issues/4628#issuecomment-411503940
It is a common situation that some project allows for multiple alternative
licenses, some of them are "free" and expressible via SPDX, while others of
them are proprietary.
Currently, this cannot
Hi James,
if there is interest, I volunteer to help with this one.
cheers,
Matija
--
gsm:+386 41 849 552
www:http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: matija.suk...@gabbler.org
sip:matija_suk...@ippi.fr
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
On Thu, 2018-08-09 at 08:03 +0200, Matija ?uklje wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> if there is interest, I volunteer to help with this one.
Sure ... as a lawyer just tell me if the form of words achieves what I
need and is optimal.
Thanks,
James
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages
Hi, Sam,
Thanks for your reply - I think this covers the use case.
About the validity of license combinations: The safest way is to have a
whitelist with allowed licenses, listing also the kind of linkage and product.
(That's how we're handling it at our company, although not yet fully
Markus Schaber:
> It is a common situation that some project allows for multiple alternative
> licenses, some of them are "free" and expressible via SPDX, while others of
> them are proprietary.
...
> As the free licenses are always a legitimate choice for the users and
> redistributors of those
Hi,
I don't see anything in the SPDX license expression syntax that permits
"OTHER"; without the prefix "LicenseRef-" this would be taken to be a valid
SPDX short identifier that exists on the license list, which it does not. I
think to strictly conform to the specification it would need to be
