Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Alan Tse wrote: > Will there be an option to use fuzzy matching showing the differences? > While it’d be nice if licenses exactly matched, the concern would be if we > had something that almost completely matched. You mentioned other tools > that

Version the matching guidelines

The spec currently links to the matching guidelines by guideline number. For example, [1]: type: indicates whether the text is replaceable or omitable as per Matching Guideline #2 (“Substantive Text”). That seems brittle with the guidelines unversioned. For example, that reference will

Re: License checking tool available

Given there are bodies such as OSI and SPDX present, with presence on the GitHub community, would the need for such a tool be mitigated if something like the GPL—itself being copy written and arguably difficult to use —be mitigated if each license

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > When I tested the application, I used the text from the SPDX license list > pages themselves which match. > That makes sense then. I also tried a copy/paste from the OSI pages and those didn't work either.

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:53:05PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:44:45AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > > The only difference that turned up in the license text is: > > > > Copyright [-©-]{+(C)+} 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > > > Our guideline for

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:12:54AM -0700, Gary wrote: > I feel we need another tool to compare text to a specific SPDX > license and indicate exactly where the 2 licenses do not match. Having this be part of the online tool would be great. But a quick-and-dirty way to accomplish this is to use

RE: License checking tool available

Thanks Trevor - you saved me some time analyzing this. Although the copyright text is excluded from the matching, the template for the license does not wrap the copyright text with the optional tags. It uses the currently published license list at spdx.org/licenses - so it is not using the new

Re: License checking tool available

Errata: W3C and WHATWG operate in *a somewhat similar manner* On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 3:51 AM Josh Habdas wrote: > Given there are bodies such as OSI and SPDX present, with presence on the > GitHub community, would the need for such a tool be mitigated if something > like the

Re: License checking tool available

Still, as a first effort I really like this. -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Michael Dolan wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > >> When I tested the

RE: License checking tool available

Awesome to hear. Is the source also at the github for spdx/tools? I took a brief look but didn't see it but admittedly didn't dig through all the files. Will there be an option to use fuzzy matching showing the differences? While it'd be nice if licenses exactly matched, the concern would be

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 6:46 PM, wrote: > An online tool for checking license text against the SPDX license list is > now available at https://spdx.org/spdxweb The URL redirects to a server > generously provided by the Openchain project team. > > The tool basically

RE: License checking tool available

Hi Philippe, I suspect it is a template issue. I just copied and pasted the license text from the SPDX listed license page: https://spdx.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0.html and it matched. We would need to diff the two versions of the text and see what is different. It is also quite possible there is

RE: License checking tool available

When I tested the application, I used the text from the SPDX license list pages themselves which match. You are finding valid issues in comparing them to the canonical versions of the license text. I feel we need another tool to compare text to a specific SPDX license and indicate

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:44:45AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: [...] > The only difference that turned up in the license text is: > > Copyright [-©-]{+(C)+} 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > Our guideline for equating copyright symbols includes (c) but not (C) > [2]. Maybe that's

Re: License checking tool available

> Given there are bodies such as OSI and SPDX present, with presence on the > GitHub community, would the need for such a tool be mitigated if something > like the GPL—itself being copy written and arguably difficult to use > —be mitigated if

Jilayne Lovejoy invited you to “SPDX Tech/Legal teams joint call”.

Jilayne Lovejoy invited you to “SPDX Tech/Legal teams joint call”. when: Tuesday, August 8, 2017, 11:00 AM MDT - 12:00 PM MDT location: https://www.uberconference.com/katestewart invitees: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org and you. See replies -

joint call legal/tech team - Tuesday, Aug 8

Hi legal and tech teams, After some discussion on the last legal call about how to better represent GPL-2.0 only (and all the other GNU licenses), as well as a bit of clean up around other licenses with varying “or later” clauses such that we are being consistent across the board - we decided

Re: joint call legal/tech team - Tuesday, Aug 8

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:54:34PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > There is a summary of the background and issue here: > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation I've spend some time today using my new wiki account to shuffle things around there and on [1]. If it's

License checking tool available

An online tool for checking license text against the SPDX license list is now available at https://spdx.org/spdxweb The URL redirects to a server generously provided by the Openchain project team. The tool basically compares the text to all SPDX listed licenses using the license matching