Disclaimer: I haven’t read the full thread and for now don’t intend to, unless I get a compelling reason to. I apologise if this e-mail will repeat something already said.
All I wanted to say about this is that if we go down that rabbit hole, we will evenutally end with the question what license the SPDX file is under (CC0-1.0) and then ask ourselves what license CC0-1.0 in under – to which, after quickly skimming the text of the license/waiver¹, I can’t say I found any. So what then? Are we allowed to even put SDXP data under that CC0-1.0 if we don’t have an explicit license to the license/waiver in the text of the license/waiver itself? If we aren’t the whole exercise is moot. Yes, this is an argumentum ad absurdum FWIW. Long story short: I’d say we shouldn’t concern ourselves with the question of the license of the license. If a condition of the license is that the text of the license should be distributed with the code, I’d argue that is a school example of an implied license and leave it at that. cheers, Matija — 1 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode -- gsm: +386 41 849 552 www: http://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suk...@gabbler.org sip: matija_suk...@ippi.fr _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
