...@lists.spdx.org; 'SPDX-legal'; 'SPDX-biz'; 'Wheeler, David A';
d...@uvic.ca
Subject: Re: meta-tag page - part II
Dear Gary,
In message 001f01cec2e5$9f1d9b20$dd58d160$@com you wrote:
The AND situation would occur if you have a file which contains code
from two or more different sources using two
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
: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:42 AM
To: Gary O'Neall
Cc: 'Wheeler, David A'; 'SPDX-legal'; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; 'SPDX-biz';
d...@uvic.ca
Subject: Re: meta-tag page - part II
Dear Gary,
In message 001f01cec2e5$9f1d9b20$dd58d160$@com you wrote
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
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
Dear Mark,
In message 01813e194c768044a6486db30b5338ccb711e...@ala-mba.corp.ad.wrs.com
you wrote:
Example 1:
--
File: ./cairo-1.10.2.tar.gz.txt/cairo-array.c (see attachment 1)
NOTICE (simplified): The file is licensed to you under either the LGPL-2.1
or MPL-1.1 at your option.
