Brad Edmondson <brad.edmondson@...> writes:
FWIW I believe that Mark Baushke looked at the current version of the
net-SNMP package during our call today and found that its constituent parts
all pointed to a single top-level license file that contained the license
stack at issue. So while your point is well-taken that the stack is not a
license but a license file, it may be that it's used in the wild as an
Mark Baushke, is this a fair characterization of what you saw today?
There are 2153 files in the net-snmp-5.7.3 file.
* 1866 of these files have no copyright or license information.
* 127 of these files have a pointer to the COPYING file at the top-level.
* 13 of these files are copyright by 'Alex Rozin'
* 2 of these files are copyright by 'Tali Rozon'
* 1 directory (disman/expression) seems to be proprietary.
Some number of files in net-snmp-5.7.3/apps/ are only under the CMU
copyright and license.
Some number of files in net-snmp-5.7.3/apps/snmpnetstat are under a
Brad Edmondson, *Esq.*
512-673-8782 | brad.edmondson@...
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...> wrote:
http://net-snmp.sourceforge.net/about/license.html is *not* a license but
a license notice file. License expressions were initially designed to
represent the licensing of a single file whether it be a source file or a
binary library or program. They each represent a complete atomic integrated
(derived) work. Packages are collections or aggregates hence very different
beasts. For example, they could potentially hold a collect of independent
works where one is a GPL-2.0 file and the other is a proprietary file
(which is perfectly legitimate. Currently package level licensing is an
ill-defined concept. Furthermore license expressions as they are defined
today at a package level do not make sense unless the package contain a
single file – e.g., binary (or a collection of binaries for which a single
license express applies to all). Even in this case the expression really
represents the express of the file. I been waiting to have the package
level license discussion so we could move forward to augment the license
expression language to better accommodate packages. I recommended that
topic for the SPDX 2017 roadmap. The Net-SNMP package presents another
reason to have that discussion.
*Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, Open Source & Software Assurance*
*Tel (510) 749-2016 | Fax (510) 749-4552*
*From:* spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@
lists.spdx.org] *On Behalf Of *J Lovejoy
*Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2016 11:30 AM
*Subject:* Net-SNMP license stack v. using license expressions
Hi Tech team,
We had a request to add the Net-SNMP license, which is actually a stack of
6 licenses: http://net-snmp.sourceforge.net/about/license.html
We’d like to get some input from the tooling and automation on this -
notes from today’s discussion are pasted below (with links to other
relevant input). Can you please provide input regarding the questions at
the end in red?
1) Review licenses still "under review" on list: https://docs.google.com/
• see notes for LPG-Bolivia-1.0 and Unicode licenses in
spreadsheet (to add)
• Discussed Net-SNMP and corresponding question as to
BSD-3-Clause with additional Sun clauses:
• This is a stack of licenses with 6 parts, that
includes repetition of BSD-3-Clause, MIT_CMU, and a variation of
BSD-3-Clause with additional info at the top (Sun variation). Should we add
this as a license stack or rely on license expressions to identify?
• As to adding as full stack: People do reproduce
this as is, project includes file-level references to full stack in a
copying file for recent versions, easier to identify for very common
project. This would require matching as a whole. But also have tried to
avoid adding license "stacks" unless necessary, as can be messy and also
doesn't seem to reflect file-level licensing. If added as a whole, would we
want to add a note that license expressions could also be used?
• If the latter, then we'd need to either add
BSD-3-Clause-Sun variation or use LicenseRef for that part.
BSD-3-Clause-Sun only seems to appear by itself (to be able to use on its
own) in old version of Net-SNMP, otherwise, appears only as part of license
• see previous discussion on this at Aug 4
meeting: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2016-08-04 and
email archive: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/
--> Decided to get input from tech team on this: what is tooling
perspective on adding this license stack versus not? Does adding as a whole
undercut automation and use of license expressions? does this cut against
or complicate automation for license detection, use of license expression,
and otherwise introduce duplication? Which approach as described above is
better from a tooling/automation perspective?
• (hope to resolve via email by end of year and add license
accordingly, but will otherwise follow-up in early Jan)
Spdx-legal mailing list