> On Jul 11, 2022, at 9:51 AM, Alexios Zavras <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think our understanding until now is that the package should have > "License-A AND License-B", to denote the presence of these licenses. But > conversely, this license expression should NOT be understood to mean that > "everything in here is under this expression (combination of licenses)". > > Richard's example of taking the license of a set and applying it to every > single item shows the error in this approach. Yes that’s it. I think AND alone could be (and might widely be) misconstrued as to what state is actually being represented. One solution is for people and tools to correctly understand the SPDX tags and operators. The other is to convey more information with those tags and operators. Which is best I don’t know, depends on how well people and tools are interpreting the conveyed information. This is a bit orthogonal from my initial inquiry, but perhaps my inquiry tests the limits of “just use AND” as the solution? > -- zvr > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of McCoy Smith > Sent: Monday, 11 July, 2022 19:43 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed > in the specification > > At this risk of opening up a giant can of worms: > Does logical AND for SPDX make sense without more information? Even if a > group of files clearly designate a single license at file level, and project > identifies each of those licenses with logical AND at project level, you > still can have misunderstandings if file level is not interrogated. > >> On Jul 11, 2022, at 9:21 AM, Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: >> If you take the patch referenced in the LWN article, you could rewrite that >> as: >> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later AND ISC >> But then subsequent modifications of the file are going to be assumed >> to be licensed under both GPLv2 and ISC, whereas it is likely the >> subsequent modifier conceptualized their changes as just being GPLv2. >> This reminds me: I've recently been informed of a project that started >> using SPDX-License-Identifier: and this has led to a complicated issue >> around a desired license change because it appears as though many >> contributions to the project were inadvertently made under a >> conjunction of two licenses, which was the result of putting a >> conjunctive SPDX-License-Identifier statement in a README file. I >> don't have the case handy but it was something like, some source files >> were BSD-3-Clause, some were Apache-2.0, someone then helpfully put >> SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause AND Apache-2.0 in a README file, >> and then new source files started mechanically including >> SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause AND Apache-2.0. >> Richard >>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:12 PM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>> Ah, that is exactly the issue I was asking about a few years ago. The >>> response on this list was that an SPDX-License-Identifier: statement >>> consisting of an "AND" expression was good enough as an alternative. >>> But my view at the time was that this entailed a loss of information >>> -- you lose the idea that the GPL is in some sense the overarching or >>> dominant license of some set of code with some subsidiary elements >>> under distinct licenses. >>> I'm not sure what I think now. I will say, the norm SFLC was trying >>> to establish in the wake of the ath5k affair never really caught on. >>> The 'snippet' solution isn't really practical in many cases because >>> you won't often be able to precisely identify the boundaries of the >>> snippet. >>> Richard >>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:06 PM McCoy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Back to the original query: >>>> Here’s an example of what I was talking about, albeit inbound BSD >>>> outbound GPL >>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/247806/ >>>> I’m suggestion an SPDX tag for what was used there: >>>> This file is based on work under the following copyright and permission >>>> notice: >>>>> On Jul 11, 2022, at 8:49 AM, McCoy Smith via lists.spdx.org >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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? > > > > > > Intel Deutschland GmbH > Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany > Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de> > Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva > Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau > Registered Office: Munich > Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928 > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1569): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1569 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
