Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX


... and one can create a Gödel number or a Turing Machine tape that can
compute any function that's computable, but to create a non-trivial one
by hand takes months of work.  In other words, the argument that a
system is *flexible* enough to cover an entire complexity space is only
an argument for its completeness, not its usability.
Come on Bradley. Please be realistic/serious or people will stop
responding to your emails labeling you as a troll (and perhaps even
remove you from this list--disclaimer I am just another participant).

By the way, Godel numbers do not represent functions, they represent
logic statements. By the way #2, a TM machine tape does not compute
anything, and I guarantee you, it will take you an infinite time and
to build a Turing Machine tape for the SIMPLEST of TMs. (please....
read the description of a Turing Machine in this 100 Year of the
Birthday of Turing, you will find it enlightening ).

SPDX is not a system of logic not a computational model, so it makes
no sense at all to compare it against either Godel numbers of TMs.

Now back to SPDX.

You can extract and document, using SPDX, licensing information in a
way that is well defined.

This, in my opinion, is the great value of SPDX as it currently
stands. Currently it is a great wrapper format.

Agreeing on the names of the licenses will be difficult, and as
pointed out, some names in SPDX are not ideal (and perhaps wrong)
but at least I now have a method to document licensing info in a
project. Compare that to the way that Debian (as you pointed out
before) documents licensing.

This part, I see is agreeing on the actual contents of each of its fields.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with the complexities that you
have described before is using a compositional model for licenses
(which I have described in the past in this list).

Spdx-legal mailing list

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.