Why don’t we reach out since they’re the license steward to see if they’d prefer an update vs two separate licenses? From: <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow <swinslow@...> Date:

Hi Brad, it's a good point and I was considering that too. I guess my one question would be whether there are other projects that have used the original vs. the later version of the license, beyond

Thanks Till for reporting the issue and Steve for looking into it. My first reaction would be that the two texts, ANTLR with additional license and ANTLR without, are legally different licenses (with

Hi Till -- taking a closer look, it seems that the language you cited was added to the original ANTLR 2 license sometime later, which is probably why it isn't in the license list version. Looking at

Thanks for flagging this, Till. I've added an issue in the license-list-XML repo to track this at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1056. I don't know the history of this one myself, but

Hi all, 1- I don't think http://localhost/ or https://127.0.0.1 should be valid urls. So I shall consider those exceptions in my code. 2- In addition to https, http and ftp; Are there any other

Hello list, I just found out that there is a deviation from https://spdx.org/licenses/ANTLR-PD.html#licenseText to the linked text from http://www.antlr2.org/license.html which contains the following

Die 19. 06. 20 et hora 03:00 J Lovejoy scripsit: FWIW, another lawyerly +1 on Till‘s analysis from me. […] This is why REUSE <https://reuse.software> requires the license texts to be stored

Hi all, Thanks Till for weighing in here! I think there are two general issues that come up here: (a) A technical question: When generating SPDX data at the file level, how does one identify the

Hi all, I have some remarks from a lawyer's perspective who is scanning source code and/or has to deal with the results from scanning. 1. It is helpful if the license text file is differently

Hi Richard: Then in this case you can take the same approach as Debian's packaging: your package in d) can be under its own license unrelated to the license of the things it contains. You could

I think "LicenseRef-license-text" is inappropriate as the different texts have differing licenses so we need something finer grained. LicenseRef-FSF-license-text would work for the FSF licenses and

Just to be really clear, the license ID of a given specific package *is* correct and definitive. What is unclear is the license of the license information. The challenge is that one software project

Hi Richard: <richard.purdie@...> wrote: I think there may be a different perspective to consider: Why include the GPL text if it does not apply (or for that matter for

You might want to consider using something more general, like LicenseRef-FSF-license-text or even LicenseRef-license-text, to use the same for all license files... -- zvr

Thanks, so to summarise, the answer is that: a) there are no SPDX identifiers for the license of a license text b) there are no plans to add any c) we can create our own namespace as mentioned above

Hi Richard, thanks for the detailed explanation -- I think I understand your use case better now. What I'd suggest would probably be that if you do want to represent this, one way might be to use a

Hi Steve, Thanks for the reply, it matches my first take on understanding this situation and is what we do today, however, we're seeing some push back from our users and I do think they have a point

"Steve Winslow" <swinslow@...> writes: It might be worth noting that one reason for this is that some license texts are not themselves released under an open source license, and

Hi Richard, Thanks for your email. A couple of thoughts, speaking just for myself: When it comes to the question of "what license applies to a license text," I think this is something that has