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 or more different licenses. In that
case, I believe you would need to satisfy the obligations of all
Wolfgang,
I liked Bradley's suggestion for syntax of the one-liner because it was
also short, but slightly more explicit about the intention. I agree that
an explanation in a readme could make this clear, but I think we are
trying to handle the case when the file might turn up in another project
...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of D M German
Mark Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 7:50 PM
Mark To: Wheeler, David A
Mark Cc: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-biz; SPDX-legal
Mark Subject: Re: meta-tag page
Wheeler, David A twisted the bytes to say:
David From a programmer's perspective I think
Dear Daniel,
In message 87ob71qey8@mn.cs.uvic.ca you wrote:
Wolfgang Also, in the interest of easy processing of the license tags, I
wouls
Wolfgang like to propse that multiple licenses in a list are separated by
white
Wolfgang space only - no OR, no commas, nor any other
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
I said:
David From a programmer's perspective I think the cryptic approach is FAR
superior. There are lots of tools that can quickly examine files and return
text with the pattern SPDX-License-Identifier: , and other tools that can
trivially process the stuff after it. The above alternative
Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]:
But this example doesn't work either. If you mix a license that allows
modify and keep the modified code closed with GPL, the only legally
possible result is GPLed code.
I see little value in constructing such more or less artificial examples.
This is
Dear Daniel,
In message CAEBXXD80CzGeL9HZkx3pQTZXF7OiFkF9+Z5_jOqabR=zls6...@mail.gmail.com
you wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but u-boot is not licensed under the GPLv2+,
but under the GPLv2+ with a special exception:
Actually if you look at U-Boot as a whole, it is GPL-2.0 only. There
Dear David,
In message 9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1a8054ab...@exch07-4850.ida.org you
wrote:
Note this comment:
# Except as otherwise marked, this code is licensed under the MIT license.
# However, the override code that patches clisp is derived
# from clisp, which is GPLv2.
# Thus
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
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote:
Note also that the license is not exactly spdx-BSD3 (it will not match
the guideliness of SPDX because of the extra clause). So in a way, the
SPDX license in this file is incorrect.
I don't see what you mean here. If we
Dear Scott,
On Oct 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program
Office) scott.lam...@hp.commailto:scott.lam...@hp.com wrote:
Thanks for updating this page. In particular for adding the rationale
for why tagging is important in the Introduction section. For me, the
main impetus of
Dear David,
In message 9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1a8054aa...@exch07-4850.ida.org you
wrote:
If there can be agreement on a very short license meta-tag - and I
have a strong preference for a version that lets me do it in 1-line-
then I'll start using it. I suspect others would do so too.
-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Philip Odence
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:08 AM
To: d...@uvic.ca; Wheeler, David A
Cc: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-biz; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: meta-tag page
LICENSE ID
I think I'm on the same page as Daniel. From
I just updated the meta-tag proposal page on the Wiki in the introduction
section. We had discussed on the general meeting this morning, that this was
needed. Have a look and see what you think.
http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/SPDX_Meta_Tags
Jilayne Lovejoy
SPDX Legal Team lead
-legal; SPDX-biz; spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org
Subject: meta-tag page
I just updated the meta-tag proposal page on the Wiki in the introduction
section. We had discussed on the general meeting this morning, that this was
needed. Have a look and see what you think.
http://wiki.spdx.org/view
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program
Office) scott.lam...@hp.com wrote:
Thanks for updating this page. In particular for adding the rationale for
why tagging is important in the Introduction section. For me, the main
impetus of adding the license tag is to
Dmg:
Following this rational, would it be possible to recommend something in the
line of:
BEGIN_LICENSE
This file is licensed under the SPDX_LICENSE_IDENTIFIER
For more information see URL-TO-SPDX-WEB-SITE-WITH-iNFO
END_LICENSE
that makes three things explicit:
* It says where the
[mailto:spdx-biz-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:09 AM
To: SPDX-legal; SPDX-biz; spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org
Subject: meta-tag page
I just updated the meta-tag proposal page on the Wiki in the introduction
section. We had discussed
...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:26 PM
To: Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office)
Cc: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-biz; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: meta-tag page
good thoughts, Scott! Perhaps we don't need to prioritized the rationales
:14 PM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy; Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office)
Cc: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-biz; SPDX-legal
Subject: RE: meta-tag page
Coming back to a higher level... What is the purpose of this page? We need
to be very clear on this. In my mind it is to propose a best practice
If there can be agreement on a very short license meta-tag - and I have a
strong preference for a version that lets me do it in 1-line- then I'll start
using it. I suspect others would do so too. After all, it's easy to add this
kind of line to a source code file:
SPDX-License-Identifier:
22 matches
Mail list logo
