> On Jul 11, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Warner Losh <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are right, this isn't the right place for this debate. I can't even parse > what you are saying here. copyleft has no legal basis as a term, so I'm not > at all sure what you are saying. You are also somewhat misrepresenting what > I'm saying and being a bit of a bully about it. I asked a SPDX specific question. You jumped in with your legal analysis unrelated to the question of whether there was an existing SPDX identifier or should there be a new one. I responded to your off-topic thoughts. That’s bullying? > But since nobody else thought it was a good idea, I think the notion in SPDX > is effectively dead unless another use case surfaces that makes sense. You’ve expressed it’s not a good idea. Is that dispositive? Jilayne had some mechanical/procedural questions about the questions I asked. Don’t think anyone else has weighed in. If I know my mailing lists, not everyone hops in immediately with their thoughts on proposals or questions. > > Warner > >> >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Warner Losh >> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:20 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed >> in the specification >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:13 AM McCoy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> “The concept you are talking about doesn't exist in law. You can only change >> the 'outbound' license if the 'inbound' license expressly allows it.” >> >> >> >> You have a case citation for that? >> >> >> >> Do you have one that does or that refutes the theory that the copyright >> holder granted you the ability to do certain things, but not to change the >> license? Without that, you are redistributing copyrighted material without >> the permission of the copyright holder. >> >> >> >> Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I've never encountered this in the last 30 >> years of doing open source. Downstream additions with a new license always >> an 'AND' unless the original license granted otherwise. It's certainly not >> the 'mainstream' of how open source operates and also goes against the >> oft-expressed desire to keep SPDX relatively simple. >> >> >> >> Warner >> >> >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Warner Losh >> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:07 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: SPDX-legal <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed >> in the specification >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 7:38 AM McCoy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> These questions are really off-topic. >> >> If you have questions about interpretation of BSD licenses, you probably >> ought to ask them of your counsel (or if you’re associated with FreeBSD, >> their counsel). >> >> There are also a lot of resources, many on-line and free, concerning the >> interpretation of most of the major open source licenses, including the BSD >> variants. This one might be instructive for you: >> >> “The so-called new BSD license applied to FreeBSD within the last few years >> is effectively a statement that you can do anything with the program or its >> source, but you do not have any warranty and none of the authors has any >> liability (basically, you cannot sue anybody). *This new BSD license is >> intended to encourage product commercialization. Any BSD code can be sold or >> included in proprietary products without any restrictions on the >> availability of your code or your future behavior.*” >> >> >> >> https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/ >> >> >> >> What does that have to do with anything? This is marketing material, not a >> license nor a grant to "file off" the old license and add your own new one. >> You are only allowed to add your new one and the old one is quite permissive >> otherwise. >> >> >> >> The concept you are talking about doesn't exist in law. You can only change >> the 'outbound' license if the 'inbound' license expressly allows it. The BSD >> license is quite permissive, but it isn't that permissive. So, your desire >> to express this concept in SPDX doesn't make sense. You are asking the SPDX >> license expression to cover something that's not a thing. That's my basic >> point, and so far you've done nothing to refute that. >> >> >> >> Warner >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Warner Losh >> Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 2:11 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: SPDX-legal <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed >> in the specification >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022, 2:17 PM McCoy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Well the example is the reverse: inbound BSD-2-Clause, outbound MIT. >> >> I’m more thinking license identifiers that go with the code (since I think >> for most folks that’s where they do license attribution/license copy >> requirements). >> >> But obviously the issue/problem is more generic given that some permissive >> licenses allow the notice to be in either (or in some cases require in both) >> the source or documentation. >> >> Are you allowed to do that without it becoming an AND? You can't just change >> the terms w/o permission like that I'd imagine... And I'm not sure how it >> would generalize... >> >> >> >> Warner >> >> >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of J Lovejoy >> Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 1:11 PM >> To: SPDX-legal <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed >> in the specification >> >> >> >> Hi McCoy! >> >> >> >> I’m moving the SPDX-general list to BCC and replying to SPDX-legal as that >> is the right place for this discussion. >> >> >> >> Where is this question coming up in terms of context? That is, are you >> thinking in the context of an SPDX document and capturing the licensing >> info for a file that is under MIT originally but then redistributed under >> BSD-2-Clause? Or are you thinking in the context of using an SPDX license >> identifiers in the source files? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jilayne >> >> >> >> On Jul 1, 2022, at 12:01 PM, McCoy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I didn’t see this particular topic addressed in the specification (although >> I’m happy to be correcedt if I missed it), so I thought I’d post and see >> whether there is a solution that’s commonly used, or if there’s room for a >> new identifier. >> >> >> >> Virtually all so-called “permissive” licenses permit the recipient of code >> to license out under different terms, as long as all the requirements of the >> in-bound license are met. In almost all of these permissive licenses those >> requirement boil down to: >> >> Preserve all existing IP notices (or in some cases, just copyright notices) >> Provide a copy of the license (or something to that effect: retaining “this >> permission notice” (ICU/Unicode/MIT) or “this list of conditions” (BSD) or >> providing “a copy of this License” (Apache 2.0)) >> >> >> The rules around element 1 and SPDX are well-described. >> >> With regard to element 2, a fully-compliant but informative notice when >> there is a change from the in-bound to the out-bound license would look >> something like this (with the square bracketed part being an example of a >> way to say this): >> >> >> >> SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT >> >> [This file/package/project contains code originally licensed under:] >> >> SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause >> >> >> >> The point being to express that the outbound license is MIT, but in order to >> fully comply with the requirements of BSD-2-Clause, one must retain “ this >> list of conditions and the following disclaimer” which including a copy of >> BSD-2-Clause accomplishes. Without the square bracketed statement above, it >> seems confusing as to what the license is (or whether, for example, the code >> is dual-licensed MIT AND BSD-2-Clause. >> >> >> One way to do this I suppose is to use the LicenseComment: field to include >> this information, but it seems to me that this is enough of a common >> situation that there ought to be something more specific to address this >> situation. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? Am I missing something? >> >> >> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1560): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1560 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/92118120/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/leave/2655439/21656/1698928721/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
