I propose adding SPDX entries for “U.S. Government Works”. I talked with a few people about this on March 7, and they seemed positive about the general idea (I realize the complications are always in

> This is not something I've come across often (ever?) in my own work You’ve probably encountered it & not realized it. Often these materials aren’t marked at all (UGH, UGH, UGH). When they are marked

A few points: * I like the idea of the specific ‘BSD-4-Clause-UC’, so that people can know that it’s actually been relicensed. One caveat: the SPDX material documenting this license should document wh

I like this. I would add a few more key pieces of information: - URL for a “canonical” copy of the license text (where available) - Canonical/common header file text, if any. - Dispositions from other

Philip Odence: > The name is unfortunate. The world will have to deal with the distinction between Unlicensed software and and unlicensed software. Just wait until you process the “Do What The F* You

The confusion may be that for at least version 3.0, it *is* the “GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE” as documented here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html I believe you mean that version 1.0 do

Jilayne Lovejoy: I agree that once an identifier is given a specific meaning, that meaning MUST not change. But I don't see a big harm in creating a new, clearer SPDX identifier for a given license. T

I really like this idea of one special line I can quickly search for. It makes the SPDX list a lot easier to use. I have a comment on the justification: “The license list for SPDX is immutable and wil

Dmg: From a programmer's perspective I think the "cryptic" approach is FAR superior. There are lots of tools that can quickly examine files and return text with the pattern "SPDX-License-Identifier: "

If there can be agreement on a very short license “meta-tag” – and I have a strong preference for a version that lets me do it in 1-line– then I’ll start using it. I suspect others would do so too. Af

Gisi, Mark [mailto:Mark.Gisi@...]: Fair enough. I very much like the idea of permitting a license *expression*, instead of one license. Fedora and Debian already do this, so this is a well-u

I said: David> From a programmer's perspective I think the "cryptic" approach is FAR superior. There are lots of tools that can quickly examine files and return text with the pattern "SPDX-License-Ide

Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd@...]: This is not artificial. Here's code that I wrote: http://sourceforge.net/p/readable/code/ci/master/tree/src/sweet-clisp Note this comment: # Except as otherwise mark

Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd@...] Ah, but these are not linked binaries. These are scripts, and it's trivial to remove one of the scripts & the rest of the software is straight-up MIT. Even for the MI

Gisi, Mark: Sure. However, in a world where a LARGE number of people intentionally include NO LICENSE and wrongly assert that "no license"=="I can do anything I want", I'm delighted to have *one* well

Perhaps there's a need to treat the "license text" not as a single string, but as a set. E.G., "GPL-2.0+,preferred-form,link-exception". --- David A. Wheeler

I’m glad to see the new expression syntax, including “+”, “with”, “and”, “or”, and “;”. Big improvement. However, I suggest NOT requiring that expressions be surrounded with parentheses when there is

I agree that the LGPL 3.0 absolutely *should* be on the license list. --- David A. Wheeler

J Lovejoy: I strongly believe “LGPL-3.0” is the correct answer. "LGPL-3.0" is much simpler, it's much clearer to non-lawyers, and referring to it as its own name matches historical practice. In *pract

Perhaps the "WITH" operator's definition needs to be extended. Instead of this definition: Perhaps "WITH" should mean "Modify the license listed on the left, by appending the text referenced on the ri