|
Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions
Hi McCoy,
I’m wondering if you are trying to adapt SPDX identifiers in a situation not anticipated. Consider that aim of an SPDX document (as per the SPDX specification, and thus, using SPDX
Hi McCoy,
I’m wondering if you are trying to adapt SPDX identifiers in a situation not anticipated. Consider that aim of an SPDX document (as per the SPDX specification, and thus, using SPDX
|
By
J Lovejoy
·
#3180
·
|
|
Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions
Hi Richard,
Annex D explains the order of precedence for the operators and use of parentheses. https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/SPDX-license-expressions/
I admit, I find the use of parentheses
Hi Richard,
Annex D explains the order of precedence for the operators and use of parentheses. https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/SPDX-license-expressions/
I admit, I find the use of parentheses
|
By
J Lovejoy
·
#3179
·
|
|
Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions
Please define "INBOUND" and "OUTBOUND" licenses. None of the open source licenses indexed by SPDX grant permission to relicense the derived work, so any work including them either is solely the
Please define "INBOUND" and "OUTBOUND" licenses. None of the open source licenses indexed by SPDX grant permission to relicense the derived work, so any work including them either is solely the
|
By
Warner Losh
·
#3178
·
|
|
Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions
At the risk of sounding like I’m hijacking this to re-raise my prior issue:
If AND is the operator to be used when having different inbound vs outbound, then AND may not be commutative, since the
At the risk of sounding like I’m hijacking this to re-raise my prior issue:
If AND is the operator to be used when having different inbound vs outbound, then AND may not be commutative, since the
|
By
McCoy Smith
·
#3177
·
|
|
Commutativity of SPDX expressions
I'm working on some draft documentation for Fedora around use of SPDX
expressions in RPM spec file License: fields. I was surprised to
apparently not see anything in the SPDX spec that says that the
I'm working on some draft documentation for Fedora around use of SPDX
expressions in RPM spec file License: fields. I was surprised to
apparently not see anything in the SPDX spec that says that the
|
By
Richard Fontana
·
#3176
·
|
|
call Thursday
Hi all,
We have our regularly schedule call tomorrow/Thursday at noon US eastern time.
After a bit of a hiatus, we’ll get back to our usual order of business. Please have a look through the current
Hi all,
We have our regularly schedule call tomorrow/Thursday at noon US eastern time.
After a bit of a hiatus, we’ll get back to our usual order of business. Please have a look through the current
|
By
J Lovejoy
·
#3175
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
Hi all,
Again, this conversation belongs on the SPDX-legal mailing list, not the SPDX-general list. I tried to remedy this early on, but somehow SPDX-legal got dropped and it went back to
Hi all,
Again, this conversation belongs on the SPDX-legal mailing list, not the SPDX-general list. I tried to remedy this early on, but somehow SPDX-legal got dropped and it went back to
|
By
J Lovejoy
·
#3174
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
What does that have to do with anything? This is marketing material, not a license nor a grant to "file off" the old license and add your own new one. You are only allowed to add your new one and the
What does that have to do with anything? This is marketing material, not a license nor a grant to "file off" the old license and add your own new one. You are only allowed to add your new one and the
|
By
Warner Losh
·
#3173
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
No, that’s not really my issue. I believe the logical operators and the ability to designate file-level licenses in SPDX handle your situation.
I’m talking about using SPDX to provide a copy of
No, that’s not really my issue. I believe the logical operators and the ability to designate file-level licenses in SPDX handle your situation.
I’m talking about using SPDX to provide a copy of
|
By
McCoy Smith <mccoy@...>
·
#3172
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
Well the example is the reverse: inbound BSD-2-Clause, outbound MIT.
I’m more thinking license identifiers that go with the code (since I think for most folks that’s where they do license
Well the example is the reverse: inbound BSD-2-Clause, outbound MIT.
I’m more thinking license identifiers that go with the code (since I think for most folks that’s where they do license
|
By
McCoy Smith <mccoy@...>
·
#3171
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
McCoy's topic reminds me of a question I asked here some time
McCoy's topic reminds me of a question I asked here some time
|
By
Richard Fontana
·
#3170
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
If I'm following the discussion correctly, I'd agree with Warner here.
If I take code that I received under BSD-2-Clause and I redistribute it under MIT, I'm really redistributing it under MIT subject
If I'm following the discussion correctly, I'd agree with Warner here.
If I take code that I received under BSD-2-Clause and I redistribute it under MIT, I'm really redistributing it under MIT subject
|
By
Steve Winslow
·
#3169
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
What makes you think they don't apply? If you have to reproduce the notice, the terms apply. You can't just take code and change the license without the permission of the copyright holders/owners/etc.
What makes you think they don't apply? If you have to reproduce the notice, the terms apply. You can't just take code and change the license without the permission of the copyright holders/owners/etc.
|
By
Warner Losh
·
#3168
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
I have spent a lot of time contemplating the question, but want to confirm I'm thinking about the same thing:
Are you talking about the nature of open source requiring (such as in a requirements.txt)
I have spent a lot of time contemplating the question, but want to confirm I'm thinking about the same thing:
Are you talking about the nature of open source requiring (such as in a requirements.txt)
|
By
Shawn Clark
·
#3167
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
Are you allowed to do that without it becoming an AND? You can't just change the terms w/o permission like that I'd imagine... And I'm not sure how it would generalize...
Warner
Are you allowed to do that without it becoming an AND? You can't just change the terms w/o permission like that I'd imagine... And I'm not sure how it would generalize...
Warner
|
By
Warner Losh
·
#3166
·
|
|
Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification
Hi McCoy!
I’m moving the SPDX-general list to BCC and replying to SPDX-legal as that is the right place for this discussion.
Where is this question coming up in terms of context? That is, are you
Hi McCoy!
I’m moving the SPDX-general list to BCC and replying to SPDX-legal as that is the right place for this discussion.
Where is this question coming up in terms of context? That is, are you
|
By
J Lovejoy
·
#3165
·
|
|
Reminder - meeting Friday on License Namespaces policy
Greetings SPDX tech and legal teams,
A reminder we are continuing the license namespace policy discussions on this Friday, July 1, 2022, at the same time as the prior meetings (15:00 UTC, 11AM
Greetings SPDX tech and legal teams,
A reminder we are continuing the license namespace policy discussions on this Friday, July 1, 2022, at the same time as the prior meetings (15:00 UTC, 11AM
|
By
Steve Winslow
·
#3164
·
|
|
Joint SPDX Tech / Legal call - namespaces
Greetings all,
Below is information on the follow-up meetings regarding license namespaces. Please mark your calendars if you are interested in attending – I will not be sending out any
Greetings all,
Below is information on the follow-up meetings regarding license namespaces. Please mark your calendars if you are interested in attending – I will not be sending out any
|
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#3163
·
|
|
Re: Fun with licenses
Dear Karsten,
This would make the perfect libretto for a foss-themed opera!
Best wishes,
Sebastian
Dear Karsten,
This would make the perfect libretto for a foss-themed opera!
Best wishes,
Sebastian
|
By
Sebastian Crane
·
#3162
·
|
|
Re: Fun with licenses
Good one for a Friday afternoon!
From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Karsten Klein <karsten.klein@...>
Date: Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:22 PM
To: SPDX-legal <Spdx-legal@...>,
Good one for a Friday afternoon!
From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Karsten Klein <karsten.klein@...>
Date: Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:22 PM
To: SPDX-legal <Spdx-legal@...>,
|
By
Phil Odence <phil.odence@...>
·
#3161
·
|