Re: Revisiting the SPDX license representation syntax
Philippe Ombredanne
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...> wrote:
One basic observation - We need to consider how far one can go in constructing an expression that implies some level of legal interpretation. For instance, in one of your examples you noted:Exactly!One objective might be: To support the construction of license expressions that* gpl-2.0 < mit: I think that the license that applies here is gpl-2.0, despite The intent when I wrote down an example starting with "I think" is to show where such a syntax could capture eventual interpretations that a user/adopter of SDPX would want to express. I am NOT saying that SPDX should provide such interpretation, but that the system should not prohibit someone else to make these interpretations and should support capturing these in a straightforward way. I see a fair amount of differences among organization in their interpretationSame, and leaving aside whacko interpretations such as "GPL cannot be used commercially", there are many grey areas where different organizations and different counsels may look at things slightly differently and come to different conclusions based on the same original materials. I hope we can encourage others to present situations they believe the current SPDX licensing mechanism does not easily support.+1! -- Philippe Ombredanne +1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@... DejaCode Enterprise at http://www.dejacode.com nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including attachments) may contain information that is proprietary or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for its delivery to the intended recipient, do not copy or distribute it. Please permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments, and notify us immediately at (650) 799 0949. |
|