Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...>
Philip Odence wrote at 08:32 (EDT):
used programs, an SPDX file author wouldn't have to do this extra work.
Isn't it SPDX's intent to make it easy to write SPDX files for the
most common programs?
Has anyone written an SPDX file for GCC versions before the RTL
Exception 3.1? If so, for it to be accurate, I'm sure it must have pages
of extra licensing information, since it's now been shown that no accurate
GCC license is currently on the SPDX license list.
Bob Gobeille wrote at 14:50 (EDT) on Thursday:
Philip wrote:
isn't either?
Again, I'm left wondering if SPDX expects upstream to do this work?
As mentioned in my previous email, that seems like a bad plan to me.
is able to find and catalog a lot of these licenses, to update SPDX's
license list. Again, I'm happy to help in cataloging the GCC licenses
if folks need assistance in understanding the patchwork of exceptions
pre RTL-Exception-3.1. I offer the same help for any Conservancy member
project, too.
Thanks again to Bob and HP, for setting the right trend by releasing a
scanning tool under a Free Software license. I hope others will follow
HP's lead in the area of software freedom.
--
-- bkuhn
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
There's a section in an SPDX file called Other Licensing InformationI'm aware of that. My point was that presumably for the most commonly
Detected to handle licenses not on the standard list.
used programs, an SPDX file author wouldn't have to do this extra work.
Isn't it SPDX's intent to make it easy to write SPDX files for the
most common programs?
Has anyone written an SPDX file for GCC versions before the RTL
Exception 3.1? If so, for it to be accurate, I'm sure it must have pages
of extra licensing information, since it's now been shown that no accurate
GCC license is currently on the SPDX license list.
Bob Gobeille wrote at 14:50 (EDT) on Thursday:
Great work, Bob and Camille!FWIW, one of our FOSSology contributors (thank you Camille) put
together a spreadsheet (HarmonisationLicenseIDs.ods) highlighting the
differences between the fossology license list and the SPDX license
list:
Philip wrote:
Hope that increases your comfort that the SPDX standard can handle-nonIs your argument that GCC's license isn't standard? Classpath's license
standard licenses.
isn't either?
Again, I'm left wondering if SPDX expects upstream to do this work?
As mentioned in my previous email, that seems like a bad plan to me.
That's great. I hope SPDX will in turn take submissions from Fossology, whichWe plan on using this to update fossology with the SPDX license short
names and insure we have license signatures for all the SPDX
licenses.
is able to find and catalog a lot of these licenses, to update SPDX's
license list. Again, I'm happy to help in cataloging the GCC licenses
if folks need assistance in understanding the patchwork of exceptions
pre RTL-Exception-3.1. I offer the same help for any Conservancy member
project, too.
Thanks again to Bob and HP, for setting the right trend by releasing a
scanning tool under a Free Software license. I hope others will follow
HP's lead in the area of software freedom.
--
-- bkuhn
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal