Hi Sebastian, thanks for this — this is an interesting proposal! I want to give
it some more thought, but here are a couple initial reactions:
For MATCHES-LICENSE, I gather the idea is that this is intended to be a signal
that the custom license text “matches” the other license based on the
Dear Ria,
> LEGALLY-EQUIVALENT-TO bothers me since "the producer of the SPDX
> document containing such a Relationship has made the claim that they
> believe the two to be legally equivalent" - if I understand that these
> tags are being assigned by the vendor, do I trust their legal
>
Sebastien,
LEGALLY-EQUIVALENT-TO bothers me since "the producer of the SPDX document
containing such a Relationship has made the claim that they believe the two to
be legally equivalent" - if I understand that these tags are being assigned by
the vendor, do I trust their legal determination?
Dear all,
On our joint SPDX Legal/Tech meeting today, one of the use-cases that
was discussed was No.6:
"issue of capturing variants of licenses which match the same listed
license per the matching guidelines"
It was one of the use-cases for which solving with licence namespaces
was least well
Greetings SPDX tech and legal team members,
Thanks to all the attendees of today's joint tech / legal call where we
discussed the namespace proposals.
I just created a pull request with the minutes at
https://github.com/spdx/meetings/pull/180
Those of you on the call, please review and
