On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 04:38:57PM +0000, Andrew Katz wrote: > My recollection is that Apache 2.0 is under Apache 2.0, also.
All explicitly-licensed licenses are going to eventually end up in some sort of loop like this (although you could have an A → B → A… cycle, etc.). Doesn't it seem like we'd want to record that information? For licenses that are not explicitly licensed, the right to distribute and/or modify them is going to be based on fair use, estoppel, etc. I'm not sure we have a way to represent that in SPDX license expressions. However, regardless of whether we decide to record the license for each of our licenses, I think adding a Verbatim license to the license list is a useful addition. That would allow other SPDX authors/tools to record the license of Verbatim content if *they* wanted to give the terms under which their Verbatim license content [1] or DCO copies [2,3] were distributed. Then SPDX can, like other SPDX authors/tools, decide where it wants to apply the Verbatim license without relying on a LicenseRef. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/COPYING?h=v4.13#n17 [2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n429 [3]: https://developercertificate.org/ -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
