Greetings tech team,
There is a request by the FSF and approved by the legal team to add a
property to the listed licenses isFsfFree to indicate if a license is
identified by the Free Software Foundation as a Free / Libre license. This
would be a simple Boolean type.
I was going to add a
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Wayne Beaton
wrote:
> My understanding is that the Secondary Licensing provision in the EPL-2.0 is
> not the same as dual licensing using an OR. From our FAQ (which we're still
> working on):
>
>> The notion of Secondary
> -Original Message-
> From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us]
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:44 PM
> To: Richard Fontana; J Lovejoy
> Cc: Gary O'Neall; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal
> Subject: Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 12:02 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:20:33AM -0700, Gary O'Neall wrote:
>> There is a request by the FSF and approved by the legal team to add
>> a property to the listed licenses
W. Trevor King wrote:
> I am against this in license-list-XML, for the same reasons I am
> against our current osi-approved type: SPDX should not be a
> canonical source of whether *someone else* has approved a license or
> not. I'd much rather provide tools for Alice to start with an SDPX
> ID
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:30:18PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> By the bye, one thing I'd find useful, either inside or outside of
> SPDX, is some notion of correspondence of an FSF-approved license
> with a counterpart OSI-approved, or SPDX-recognized, license.
>
> To illustrate, consider the
W. Trevor King wrote:
> They also list the Expat license as free and GPL-compatible [5], and
> it matches the SPDX MIT [6]. So you can say the FSF considers the
> SPDX MIT free and GPL-compatible.
Ah right - so not as interesting an example as others I was thinking
of. I've been thinking about