Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Hi, I would like to now if this could make sense to add the "EDL - Eclipse Distribution License" to spdx ? I ask the question because it seems this is a

By Simon Bernard <contact@...> · #2104 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Philippe Ombredanne wrote: Indeed, that's an excellent example of how an out-of-band statement about licensing does indeed impact the copyright license of a work and grant additional permissions from

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #2103 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

I agree that getting consistent confidence numbers is going to be hard, and that without that (and maybe even with that), confidence weights may not be very useful. But with two license tools

By W. Trevor King · #2102 ·

Re: update on only/or later etc.

OK, so GH licensee does not even make a serious attempt at providing accurate information and instead returns half-baked partial license information. Despite all the good intentions, I find it

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2101 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

By Gary O'Neall · #2100 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

Philippe's recent points about weighted confidence (e.g. [1]) suggests that, even if we decide to support incomplete conclusions, an unweighted list of alternatives may not be sufficient. In that

By W. Trevor King · #2099 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

No, this does not need a new exception or otherwise be captured via SPDX license expressions. It’s a statement as to intent on how some specific parties will go about an aspect of license

By J Lovejoy · #2098 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Bradley, FWIW, as a tool smith, I have no technical issue with combining the license and copyright holder scans and therefore returning a GPL + rider license if the holder is offering such a rider. It

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2097 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Maybe for me it's not necessarily (just) the external nature of the commitment but also that -- as important as it is -- it does not go to the core of the concerns that I think of as being of central

By Richard Fontana · #2096 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Richard, say I am a user of 5,000 packages. Some of which come with this L/GPL rider, some not: I could see some value there. But then again, it may be a point minor enough that this may not be worth

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2095 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Michael Dolan wrote: I agree that declarations of additional permissions made outside of a codebase are a different issue for SPDX, in large part because SPDX's most common use case is source code

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #2094 ·

FW: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

FYI – I forgot to cc the legal team on the follow-up email to the tech team. Anyone on the legal team interested in the OR-MAYBE topic is welcome to join the call tomorrow. Gary

By Gary O'Neall · #2093 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

+1, I would also add that these are external and unilateral declarations of additional permissions. It would also get very complex to try to track all external, unilateral declarations of additional

By Michael Dolan · #2092 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Right. I can't really see a justification for creating SPDX identifiers to represent purely external statements. Richard

By Richard Fontana · #2091 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Michael Dolan wrote: Thanks, can you point me to the relevant call minutes where the SPDX community made a final conclusion on this point? As I understand Richard's reasons, they relate to license

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #2090 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

It was discussed on one of the calls and for reasons Richard has already articulated it was not pursued further. It wasn't a "big discussion".

By Michael Dolan · #2089 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

I agree that it's an additional permission under copyright. I just realized my earlier statement may have been ambiguous. When I say "you could reformulate ..." what I mean is you could draft

By Richard Fontana · #2088 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Mike Dolan wrote: Can someone point me to the discussion where SPDX discussed the Linux Kernel Enforcement statement where SPDX already decided it was "out of scope"? I hadn't realized SPDX community

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #2087 ·

Re: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on only/or later etc.)

Since Philippe and Trevor are OK or reluctantly OK with the OR-MAYBE proposal and it looks like it solves the issues David is raising, why don't we proceed with this as a proposal for 2.1. Since this

By Gary O'Neall · #2086 ·

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

Out of scope is how we treated the TAB's Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement, which this appears entirely consistent with.

By Michael Dolan · #2085 ·

1301 - 1320 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms