We tried to discuss this for a bit on the call today, but realized more info was really needed to have a meaningful discussion. Perhaps Guillaume or Daniel could flesh out a use case scenario, as well as more details on how this would work, what it would take to implement, etc.
Seems like keeping this on both lists is also a good idea. Thanks! Jilayne On 3/7/13 12:33 PM, "Guillaume Rousseau" <[email protected]> wrote: >OK I split the thread and focus on the third bullet. >> As for Guillaume's idea of having a letter reserved for short >> identifiers for other license lists to use (M would not work MPL!! >> We might have to use a symbol or X? Would have to check current short >> identifiers for a letter not being usedŠ :) - this is an interesting >> idea that seems rather easy to implement, but could also cause other >> problems. I was not aware of the use case cited and we'll have to >> check with the tech team on that. ?? >> >A short copy paste from the thread regarding this point (see original >thread for full comments) > >- My first suggestion was to reserve "M-*" not "M*" :-). >- The second one was to duplicate acronym allowing SPDX-GPL-2.0 and >GPL-2.0. >- Roger said "A prefix to identify local/private maintained licenses >would be great" >- Philippe said "With that said, Guillaume point to private naming of >licenses is a valid one. >That could be best supported by supporting appropriate private namespacing >(which is something RDF does very well) and could be something to design >for future specs versions" >- Daniel said "I think that the best way to implement this in the future >is to be >able to specify domains in the identifiers. Something like >ninka.bsd3, fossology.afossolyname, spdx.bsd3 and default the >domains to spdx." >- I have opened the question about creation of a new use case or update >of this one http://spdx.org/wiki/license-list-extension > > > >Some of the use case I have in mind, in wich license collision can occur >- A user wants to add a new license to the license list used to define >license policies (of course SPDX license list can not be overridden). >- A user manages licenses information from different scanning tools >(like fossology , see >http://www.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki/MatchSPDXLicenceIDs). >- A user upgrades a tool supporting a new version of SPDX license. >- A user imports a preexisting knowledge base including license >information. > >Regarding namespacing, I like Daniel suggestion. It could give something >like >[Domain.][License Name][-Version][Exception] >License Name is of course mandatory, and domain name does not have to be >displayed if there is no conflict between identifiers. >I'm not sure we should say something about default domain, but why not. > >Guillaume > >-- >Guillaume ROUSSEAU >CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink >Président, Cofondateur, Antelink > >18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France >http://www.antelink.com/ >Office : +33 1 42 39 30 78 > >_______________________________________________ >Spdx-legal mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal > _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
