Schuberth, Sebastian <sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote: The issue is how the software is licensed, not what the text of the GPL (or anything else) is. The use of "+" to mean "or later" is a long-st

Philippe Ombredanne: You may be confusing a SPDX "license identifier" and a SPDX "license expression". It's a subtle point. The purpose of a "license identifier" is to identify a specific text of a sp

I said: Just a few nitpicks on my previous email: * I realize that "GPL-2.0+" is in the list of "deprecated" license identifiers, so in some sense there is a "GPL-2.0+" license identifier. But I think

Philippe Ombredanne: That's not just what I say. That's what the spec says, and has clearly stated since circa 2010. This would have been a useful argument to raise in 2010 (when SPDX was drafted). Bu

Philippe Ombredanne: These are not minor technicalities from a legal point of view; versions are important. They control what is allowed and not allowed. It's true that many developers don't care abou

Dennis Clark: > I would be very interested to know if any of you have any thoughts about the TPP provisions that impact software distribution, particularly source code redistribution obligations: > ht

Dennis Clark: I asked someone else whose legal opinion I respect about this. (I don't have permission to share his name, so I won't do that here.) He said that the view of that article is misleading;

Jilayne: I agree. In fact, I think listing both "0BSD" and "FPL-1.0.0" is a great solution, especially if the SPDX website includes notices with each similar to the text at https://opensource.org/lice

Can there please *ALSO* be standard fields to report if the license is: * a free license as approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) [Proposed field name: “FSF-approved”] * a free license accept

Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis quoted this “NoNuclear” license: Matija: Phil: To me, that’s a distinction without a difference. *All* license selections are based on philosophical reasons;

That's a completely different legal text. I agree that "not intended for use in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of any nuclear facility" is not a licensing term, it's a notificatio

Eric Weddington [mailto:Eric_Weddington@...]: Excellent point, and these are clearly *not* open source software licenses as well. Agreed. --- David A. Wheeler

Thanks for the support for this proposal. I’m also realizing that these really shouldn’t be Boolean. For example, Fedora’s license list identifies both “good” and “bad” licenses – so the field should

Gisi, Mark: I think that public domain designations should be handled *exactly* the same way by SPDX as all other common licenses - just create SPDX license identifiers for common ones. Indeed, SPDX a

Jilayne’s recommendation makes sense to me…! --- David A. Wheeler

David Parrish: This appears to be an existing SPDX license, BSD-3-Clause. See: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause This is a widely-used OSI-approved license. --- David A. Wheeler

J Lovejoy: Please DO NOT deprecate "GPL-2.0". DO NOT DO THIS. If you do, we'll have *exactly* the same problem again in a few years. We need at least *3* cases. Here they are, with potential names/exp

Typically the "WITH" clauses are for a separate fragment of text that can be added to the "end" of a base license as a "rider". It looks like this license text has it all merged in a single document.

J Lovejoy: I agree, I think something like "BSD-2-Clause-Patent" would be the better choice: * It's more consistent with the other licenses * All the existing tools can handle that, even if they can o

Richard Fontana: > The way I read the matching guidelines this license does not actually match to BSD-3-Clause, even though it obviously should. I think the problem is that I am reading the matching g