From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yev Bronshteyn Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 3:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RDF rules for conjunctive, disjunctive licenses. 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. [Gary] I believe we should specify the cardinality in the spec. They are specified in the RDF terms (min. 2 or more) This could be added to the license expression section 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> [Gary] Min 2 or more proposed 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”). [Gary] I can think of some scenarios where this should be allowed. For example, if you have a package with a file from a different package where no license was found, you would want to have a conjunctive license with the package license and either NONE or NOASSERTION. [Gary] 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
