J Lovejoy <[email protected]>:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Eric S. Raymond <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Kevin P. Fleming <[email protected]>:
> >> And on the subject of the MIT- annd BSD-style licenses, removing the
> >> license notice which contains the copyright holder(s)' name(s) and
> >> replacing it with an SPDX license identifier is a material change.
> >
> > Altering copyrights is a different and much more legally dicey proposition
> > than altering licenses. My code doesn't touch copyrights.
> >
> > Another common misconception, which the SPDX list unfortunately
> > encourages, is that the copyright is part of the license.
>
> That is incorrect. The SPDX specification treats the copyright notice in a
> separate field, both at the package level and at the file level. Please see
> section 3.16 and 4.8 - http://spdx.org/sites/spdx/files/SPDX-2.0.pdf
Oh, that's good But some texts on the website include copyright headers,
creating the impression that the copyright is part of the license.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
