I just noticed, that the SPDX 2.0 spec doesn’t seem to specify the cardinality of individual members of a conjunctive or disjunctive license.
For example… should this be legal in RDF? <spdx:Package rdf:about="http://example.org/compoundLicenseTest#SPDXRef-2";> <spdx:licenseDeclared> <spdx:DisjunctiveLicenseSet/> </spdx:licenseDeclared> <spdx:licenseConcluded> <spdx:ConjunctiveLicenseSet/> </spdx:licenseConcluded> ... </spdx:Package> How about this? <spdx:ConjunctiveLicenseSet> <spdx:member rdf:resource="http://spdx.org/licenses/Apache-2.0"/> </spdx:ConjunctiveLicenseSet> Can NOASSERTION or NONE be legally used as a term in a conjunctive or a disjunctive license? (As in, “it may be GPL, but maybe something else, depending your arrangement with author, and I don’t know what that something else is”). I would suggest taking this opportunity to cover these edge cases in the spec. Thanks. Yev
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
