>>> >>> 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. > -- >
You mean some of the license texts on the SPDX License List have copyright notices. Yes, they do. But the license matching guidelines will tell you that the copyright notice is to be ignored for purposes of matching to the license text. Keep in mind, that the original goal of the SPDX License List was to make referencing open source licenses in an SPDX document more efficient. That the SPDX License List has in useful in situations outside of an SPDX document is a good thing and not surprising. However, understanding how it all fits together (i.e., the SPDX specification) is a good overview and may lead to more nuggets of helpfulness :) _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
