on an analysis of past-incorporated license notices) "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause" is certifying that they have the right to submit it under the stated composite

Hi Richard, I think both your possibilities work, and with the current state of art, I would agree with Kate, Jilayne and Gary. On the other hand it seems to me that exactly how to mark source code is

+1 on Kate’s recommendation. This format will be properly parsed by the SPDX Tools parsers (the 3 parsers I am aware of) and I believe represents the intent behind the AND operator. Gary

Agree. And also agree with Richard’s comment about avoiding legal interpretations. When you say that the license is “X AND Y” you are saying both licenses apply. Which is the fact for this file. You a

Hi Richard, I suspect the others will comment as well, but I would hope to see "SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0" as a summary. The second approach may become ambiguous to scanners as t

Suppose you're dealing with the following source file legal notice (example taken from https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/permissive-code-into-mpl/, itself adapted from the examples discussed by SF

Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/blob/cfa1b9d08903befdf03e669da6472707b7b60cb9/chapters/appendix-IV-SPDX-license-expressions.md#composite-license-expressions- [

License Expressions" says: "More expressive composite license expressions can be constructed using "OR", "AND", and "WITH" operators similar to constructing mathematical expressions

Other benefits to all the composite approaches are that React's license expression will include ‘BSD-3-Clause’ and you can have a one-to-one mapping between files and entries in the

Composite licensing is a good thing but it needs to be better managed by the open source movement at large and SPDX is an important component of the solution.

are here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2016-08-04 With the relevant section being: new license request: from Tom Incorvia for Net-SNMP license: this is actually a composite

composite licenses - how to markup? exceptions - need their own template?

Hello SPDX Tech and Legal teams, Please find attached some documentation for our call on Tuesday regarding fields in the SPDX specification, v2.0 that use either NONE, NOASSERTION or both. The goal of

Taking Apache as an open source example, you see quite often an aggregated composite notice and license texts listing every licenses of non-Apache and Apache components embedded in

pli=1#gid=695212681 Disjunctive license notices: See examples, such as http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ or https://netbeans.org/about/legal/license.html Conjunctive (composite) licenses

The Feb 5 meeting will be postponed 1 week to Thurs. Feb 12. (outside US, note that US will be on daylight savings time next week so the call will be an hour off of normal for you). The main thrust of

Hi Mark, Thanks for working on this! I finally got some time to go through your document in detail. Overall, looks good. I only had 2 comments: - The example in section III 1) has an LGPL 2.1+ where i

Attached is the draft of the SPDX Legal Working group’s License Expression Syntax for the upcoming SPDX 2.0 Specification. We are seeking community feedback by September 12th. Overview: Often a single

You could even provide both the long list of SPDX ids AND the composite text.

This is handy to express composite licenses at a package level.