I've always assumed the AND and OR operators to be commutative and the SPDX Java tools take full advantage of the commutative properties when comparing license expressions. I would welcome a pull

Each of the individual files retains the original copyright and license, as the original author required. You are required to still abide by the terms in those files (but each individual grant is not

The order of operations is a different issue, I think. I guess the SPDX spec assumes, as you say, that commutativity of AND and OR is implicit (like counterpart operations in propositional logic),

Rather than getting into further debates about what various licenses do and don't require, or for that matter what copyright law does or doesn't require, I guess I'd turn back to the ath5k example.

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 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

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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

McCoy's topic reminds me of a question I asked here some time

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

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.

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)

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

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