RE: update on only/or later etc.

I understand and agree with David's concerns - also coming from a tooling perspective. However, I believe this is a different problem than the FSF issue and a problem we have today with the current license expression syntax and the current license list. It seems we are talking about 2

Re: update on only/or later etc.

J Lovejoy writes: > Hi All, > > Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to try and > come to a resolution everyone can be happy with, taking into > consideration the ask from the FSF and the many thorough discussions > we’ve had on the mailing list and

Re: update on only/or later etc.

Hi David, I think your points are good ones, but it seems to me they go to the separate issues of "file:detected license" and "package:concluded license." The clarity of the spec argument is aimed at making the "file:detected license" case more explicit, and if it leaves tools with NOASSERTION

RE: update on only/or later etc.

J Lovejoy: > Do NOT add a identifier or operator, etc. for the found-license-text-only > scenario where you don’t know if the intent of the copyright holder was “only > or “or later” and are thus left to interpret clause I disagree, sorry. > - we don’t need to solve this right now and we can

Re: update on only/or later etc.

Great. We will start calling you two Kings Solomon. From: on behalf of Jilayne Lovejoy Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 7:38 PM To: SPDX-legal Subject: update on only/or later etc. Hi All, Kate and I