I am not a lawyer, but it seems that concluded and effective should be synonyms. The goal is an algorithm that takes license and policy inputs and produces a concluded=effective license, whether the algorithm is executed by human or machine. When there is not, the "decision" process becomes a quasi-legal one decided on a case by case basis based on factors (such as precedents) outside the inputs, or worse, a non-deterministic one based on unstated opinions of the decider. This is your fourth bullet. If the decision were repeatable (a deterministic function of its inputs), then it would be part of the curation/automation algorithm.
Your fifth bullet (the recipient needs inputs, concluded, and effective) is an assumption - it's not clear what benefits it provides over (recipient needs inputs and concluded=effective). The recipient has the business case to judge whether he is violating terms of the concluded license. If the "decider" knew the business cases applicable to all recipients, then they would be captured in policy and reflected in the concluded license. Further effort should be directed at correcting the license and policy deficiencies that lead to the possibility of a subjective "effective" decision, rather than trying to codify a distinction between concluded and effective. The courts exist to resolve everything that falls through the cracks - SPDX's job is to make the cracks as small as possible. Dave On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:53 PM Karsten Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > in today’s SPDX-Docfest I took the action item to raise a question > regarding the interpretation of *concluded license*. > > > > My point is the concluded license is semantically overloaded: > > 1. Used as the result of curation process > 2. Used as the result of automatic process applying best efforts > 3. Used to determine the license under which the item is further > distributed (in particular when there is a licensing option) > > > > While 1) and 2) appear ok to me I took the argument that we need to > differentiate case 3) from the other two. I argued along > > - There is a license conclusion under which we consume the license > (from upstream) > - There is a license decision (to not use the term conclusion here) to > specify how we pass on the item (downstream) > - That we need to convey the upstream and downstream licenses > - That the license decision is policy-driven and use-case (or rather > business-case) specific and determined in the context of my distribution or > application and that this does not yet apply to the concluded license > - That this must be tracible by the recipient of my SPDX document > (downstream) > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4194): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4194 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/85658846/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
