I previously wrote, referring to https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655
> as Bradley Kuhn says in a comment to that issue, "drafted somewhat > differently and therefore presumably should be analyzed differently > so as not to conflate apples and oranges". On further thought, there are actually more underlying similarities than differences between these two exceptions. I believe it would be productive for them to be considered and discussed at the same time. Re-reading the GitHub issue, I remembered that this list had an earlier thread about whether an SPDX identifier would be appropriate for the commitment texts published by Red Hat and other companies at the launch of what we now call the GPL Cooperation Commitment initiative. Since that time, the GPL Cooperation Commitment has been slightly expanded to include a form suitable for inclusion in source trees, much as the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement is included in the kernel source tree. Bradley, given that, what are your feelings on this at this point? Would you be comfortable at this point considering them together? Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2413): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2413 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27401456/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
