Hi Yev,
Responses inline below: From: Yev Bronshteyn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 12:10 PM To: Gary O'Neall; [email protected] Subject: License Exceptions ("WITH") in RDF Hi, Gary and all, In attempting to document the correct way of expressing SPDX license expressions in RDF (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tu2wopYrYc4_H4KroypXUa3esYBWR2dzzwOZCj9mstk/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tu2wopYrYc4_H4KroypXUa3esYBWR2dzzwOZCj9mstk/edit> ), I’ve noticed there’s this rich syntax around license expressions that isn’t documented at all. Here’s a sample element based on the output of SPDX tools, with some questions below: <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org#SPDXRef-ButIdDontWantToException";> <rdfs:comment>This exception may be invalid in some jurisdictions.</rdfs:comment> <rdfs:seeAlso>http://dilbert.com/strip/1997-01-15 <http://dilbert.com/strip/1997-01-15%3c/rdfs:seeAlso> </rdfs:seeAlso> <spdx:example>So this one time, I had a license exception…</spdx:example> <spdx:licenseExceptionText>A user of this software may decline to follow any subset of the terms of this license at his/her pleasure. </spdx:licenseExceptionText> <spdx:name>"But I Don't Want To" Exception</spdx:name> <spdx:licenseExceptionId>SPDXRef-ButIdDontWantToException</spdx:licenseExceptionId> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://spdx.org/rdf/terms#LicenseException"/> </rdf:Description> 1. What’s the intent of the example field? Can anyone give an, ahem, example of how it might be used? The OWL comment is not particularly illustrative: "Text for examples in describing an SPDX element." [Gary] This was defined by the legal team when exceptions were first created. It maps to a column in the spreadsheet used to create SPDX exceptions in the license list. From looking at the column, it is references to text where the license exception is used. 2. The OWL description for licenseExceptionId is "A human readable short form license exception identifier for a license. The license ID is iether on the standard license oist or the form "LicenseRef-"[idString] where [idString] is a unique string containing letters, numbers, ".", "-" or "+”.". First, we should probably fix the spelling and the grammar. Second, if this is this ID of the license to which the exception applies, why not call this field “licenseId”? And third, the spec contains the following language under “EXCEPTION (‘WITH’) OPERATOR” (Appendix IV): If the applicable exception is not found on the SPDX License Exception List, then use a single <license-ref> to represent the entire license terms (including the exception). [Gary] This looks like an inconsistency in the RDF and spec. The comment was copy/pasted from the spec so it is likely the spec changed after the copy/paste was done. I'll filed a bug (1353) to correct the language to: short form license exception identifier in <https://docs.google.com/a/s.sfusd.edu/document/d/1wE_zvLU4c291ACi9wIJmQoE4ltKRW4rzM1TYiIvEVOs/edit?pli=1#heading=h.ruv3yl8g6czd> Appendix I.2 of the SPDX specification. Wouldn’t that mean that this field should always contain a standard License List identifier rather than a license ref? Thanks. Yev cid:7EA68D51-363B-4FAD-A939-D9CD926D70AB Yev Bronshteyn Senior Software Engineer <http://www.blackducksoftware.com/> Black Duck Software
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
