Cross-posting from [1], at Gary's suggestion [2].
I'd like to allowed + for license-ref (it's currently only for
license-id [3]). There could be external licenses which offer a choice
between only-this-version and or-later grants, and allowing + for
license-ref makes it easier to support those
> -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-tech@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal
> Subject: Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:56:55PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I've been thinking about this because there's been some interest
> among the FSF and OSI in seeing where exactly the lists of
> FSF-recognized-as-free and OSI-approved licenses disagree.
This is definitely something that would be
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
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
>
> 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 be clear - the FSF does not approve licenses, they identify whether FSF
considered
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 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 isFsfFree to indicate if a license
> is identified by the Free Software Foundation as a Free / Libre
> license. This would be a
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
10 matches
Mail list logo