Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?


Philippe Ombredanne
 

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@...> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:04:15AM -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
As I understand Richard's reasons, they relate to license documents that
*don't* appear in a source code repository, which is the case for the Google
and Red Hat statements today.
Right. I can't really see a justification for creating SPDX
identifiers to represent purely external statements.
Richard,

say I am a user of 5,000 packages. Some of which come with this L/GPL
rider, some not: I could see some value there. But then again, it may
be a point minor enough that this may not be worth tracking in SPDX.
And of course very few reuse 5,000 packages, right? Yet in fact
several small to mid-size container-based deployment reach this number
very quickly. Add a few npm/node-based apps in the mix and you top
that number even faster in practice.

--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.