Re: Revisiting the SPDX license representation syntax
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
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
I hope we can encourage others to present situations they believe the current SPDX licensing mechanism does not easily support.+1!
+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.