I can understand the concern - we don't want to appear to be documenting any legal conclusions on what is copyrightable.
I believe the intent of "copyrightable component" is really "a component of the SPDX document which we are interested in documenting the information related to copyrightable components (e.g. copyright, license, notice)". Of course, we will need a shorter more concise description. Gary From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:04 AM To: Jeremiah Foster; [email protected] Subject: Re: Proposal for SPDX Element Identifier Hi Jeremiah, _____ From: Jeremiah Foster <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 2:41 AM Subject: Re: Proposal for SPDX Element Identifier On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, Following up from last week's very sucessful discussions, the following proposal has been drafted to review for the element identifiers. https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/document/d/1gNtAYs7IhlGE4SWAXUIIWwpZmEv r4Jz9Ep1MNswyWBk/edit# <https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/document/d/1gNtAYs7IhlGE4SWAXUIIWwpZmE vr4Jz9Ep1MNswyWBk/edit> Please review and comment in the google doc. What sort of legal basis is being used for the concept of "copyrightable"? I can see why you'd want to have the smallest possible atomic unit for technical reasons, but I don't think there is a particularly strong legal basis for asserting copyright on a code snippet. This is being associated with File and Package at this stage which are currently copyrightable. There is some discussion on whether we'll be including snippets or not (and how - ie. part of file or separate object in the modeling). Kate
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
