|
GPLv2 - Github example
Mark Gisi: I disagree, for at least two reasons: 1. A vast amount of software does *NOT* require weird special-case licenserefs. 2. Many people who use SPDX will never see nor use a SPDX file. Instead
Mark Gisi: I disagree, for at least two reasons: 1. A vast amount of software does *NOT* require weird special-case licenserefs. 2. Many people who use SPDX will never see nor use a SPDX file. Instead
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1900
·
|
|
GPLv2 - Github example
W. Trevor King: Gisi, Mark: I disagree. LicenseRef is not a cornerstone, and for many use cases it's irrelevant. Many tools and formats *only* support SPDX license expressions, so it's very useful to
W. Trevor King: Gisi, Mark: I disagree. LicenseRef is not a cornerstone, and for many use cases it's irrelevant. Many tools and formats *only* support SPDX license expressions, so it's very useful to
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1890
·
|
|
New license proposal: Verbatim
J Lovejoy: I agree. I think the point of SPDX is to enable people to understand the licenses of the software being used (or under consideration). The "license of the license" is something that very fe
J Lovejoy: I agree. I think the point of SPDX is to enable people to understand the licenses of the software being used (or under consideration). The "license of the license" is something that very fe
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1881
·
|
|
New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
Regarding EPL-2.0 at <https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/>... Richard Fontana: I agree that the text in exhibit A, by itself, is just an "OR" if invoked. It may be wordy but it looks like a simple
Regarding EPL-2.0 at <https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/>... Richard Fontana: I agree that the text in exhibit A, by itself, is just an "OR" if invoked. It may be wordy but it looks like a simple
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1865
·
|
|
New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
Kate Stewart: Those are *syntactically* fine SPDX license expressions, of course. However - do they really *mean* "EPL-2.0 AND GPL-2.0"?!? That would mean that recipients would have to comply with *bo
Kate Stewart: Those are *syntactically* fine SPDX license expressions, of course. However - do they really *mean* "EPL-2.0 AND GPL-2.0"?!? That would mean that recipients would have to comply with *bo
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1858
·
|
|
Two kinds of license version number ambiguity
The call yesterday revealed to me that there are *two* kinds of license version ambiguity in SPDX license expressions. I don't know if this is actually a problem, or if it is, that solving it is worth
The call yesterday revealed to me that there are *two* kinds of license version ambiguity in SPDX license expressions. I don't know if this is actually a problem, or if it is, that solving it is worth
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1850
·
|
|
minutes, summary, next steps
Gary @ sourceauditor.com: I think "ONLY" is clear, and we already have other alphabetic keywords ("AND", "OR", "WITH"). If you want to cuddle up an operator like "+", I suggested "!" earlier, which wo
Gary @ sourceauditor.com: I think "ONLY" is clear, and we already have other alphabetic keywords ("AND", "OR", "WITH"). If you want to cuddle up an operator like "+", I suggested "!" earlier, which wo
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1849
·
|
|
minutes, summary, next steps
W. Trevor King: The "ONLY" would be an operator, so I'd expect to see: (GPL-2.0 ONLY OR GPL-3.0 ONLY) That is pretty clear. That would be ambiguous as written, under the current proposal, but there's
W. Trevor King: The "ONLY" would be an operator, so I'd expect to see: (GPL-2.0 ONLY OR GPL-3.0 ONLY) That is pretty clear. That would be ambiguous as written, under the current proposal, but there's
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1846
·
|
|
New License Request: FB-Patents-2.0
Based on feedback from W. Trevor King (thank you!!), here is round 2. Here I propose this Facebook rider as a new *license* instead of separate license *exception*. The proposal is below; I'm includin
Based on feedback from W. Trevor King (thank you!!), here is round 2. Here I propose this Facebook rider as a new *license* instead of separate license *exception*. The proposal is below; I'm includin
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1841
·
|
|
New License/Exception Request: ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception
I'm happy with that instead.. I just want a standard way to refer to it. I'd prefer "Facebook-Patents-2.0" instead of "FB" because "FB" isn't as obvious, but that is a nit, and either name (or many ot
I'm happy with that instead.. I just want a standard way to refer to it. I'd prefer "Facebook-Patents-2.0" instead of "FB" because "FB" isn't as obvious, but that is a nit, and either name (or many ot
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1840
·
|
|
New License/Exception Request: ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception
INTRODUCTION: Many Facebook projects, including the widely-used React.js, have a different license approach than others: They use a stock OSS license *with* a special patent-related rider (in the case
INTRODUCTION: Many Facebook projects, including the widely-used React.js, have a different license approach than others: They use a stock OSS license *with* a special patent-related rider (in the case
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1838
·
|
|
Your license: full name and identifier - BSD-2-Clause-Patent?
Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.smith@...] I can't be the only one to confuse "BSD+Patent" with "BSD+Patents". But in that case, I think there needs to be a *speedy* assignment (hah!) of a SPDX licen
Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.smith@...] I can't be the only one to confuse "BSD+Patent" with "BSD+Patents". But in that case, I think there needs to be a *speedy* assignment (hah!) of a SPDX licen
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1835
·
|
|
Your license: full name and identifier - BSD-2-Clause-Patent?
Ah! Thanks so much for the clarification. In that case, what *is* the SPDX license id or expression for the license used by many widely-used Facebook projects, including React.js? If there isn't one,
Ah! Thanks so much for the clarification. In that case, what *is* the SPDX license id or expression for the license used by many widely-used Facebook projects, including React.js? If there isn't one,
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1833
·
|
|
Your license: full name and identifier - BSD-2-Clause-Patent?
Is the final formal SPDX name for React, etc., going to be "BSD-2-Clause-Patent"? That's what is listed here: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent Thanks. --- David A. Wheeler
Is the final formal SPDX name for React, etc., going to be "BSD-2-Clause-Patent"? That's what is listed here: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent Thanks. --- David A. Wheeler
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1831
·
|
|
revised wording for top of exceptions page
Perhaps the term “exceptions” is confusing & should be renamed. If so, how about “additional terms”? It seems to me that “exceptions” have both *add* or *remove* requirements, but it appears that othe
Perhaps the term “exceptions” is confusing & should be renamed. If so, how about “additional terms”? It seems to me that “exceptions” have both *add* or *remove* requirements, but it appears that othe
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1767
·
|
|
New License Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License
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
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
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1736
·
|
|
New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)
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
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
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1722
·
|
|
New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)
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.
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.
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1713
·
|
|
[spdx-tech] various threads on "only" suffix (for GPL)
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
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
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1695
·
|
|
New License Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License
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
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
|
By
David A. Wheeler
· #1687
·
|