> Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark: For items to be added to the SPDX License List, among other requirements there needs to be a corresponding "matching text" that represents the entr

michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]: Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information: As Creative Commons says, "CC0 should not be used to mar

Phil Odence: > And, also, bear in mind that SPDX can handle any license. Worst case, you identify a local license identifier and include the license. The goal of the license list is to minimize the ne

Markus Schaber: ... In a SPDX license expression you could use "OTHER", e.g.: (AGPL-3.0-only OR OTHER). That's less specific, but it does provide *some* information, it and doesn't require that a SPDX

Bradley M. Kuhn: I agree. I disagree, for several reasons. * Version numbers are normally at the end. * In practice, I think in almost all cases what is intended is the *unported*/*international* vers

Sorry for the long email, but I was asked for evidence... so I went and got some. David A. Wheeler: Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:pombredanne@...] The issue of having to *check* for Apache-2.0 & GP

gary@... [mailto:gary@...] Yes, it does. --- David A. Wheeler

David A. Wheeler: Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:pombredanne@...] Yes, there are a number of cases where it's important. The usual reason is because I'm trying to link Apache-2.0 licensed code with

Philippe Ombredanne: Respectfully: There *IS* contention. I'm contending. Sure, but all summaries, and all models, omit something. Indeed, a SPDX license file *also* cannot capture all the nuances. Th

J Lovejoy [mailto:opensource@...]: Yes indeed, that's my point :-). The tools are currently *required* to be incorrect, because they cannot report the information they have ("I have GPL-2.0, a

Brad Edmondson [mailto:brad.edmondson@...] No, it fails to work for multiple reasons: 1. "NOASSERTION" is basically useless, because it provides no information. In many cases, all I need to know

J Lovejoy: I disagree, sorry. No, this is the *reason* that there's a problem. The *reason* that "GPL-2.0" isn't working is, in part, because it overloads two notions. "GPL-2.0" is supposed to mean "O

Jilayne Lovejoy <opensource@...>: This "resolution" doesn't solve the problem. Since tools are not yet sentient, tools often *cannot* determine if "or later" was intended. Yet "don't know" mak

Gary O'Neall [mailto:gary@...]: Good to know! But you still don't need parentheses when the entire expression fits on a line (e.g., "MIT OR BSD-3-Clause"), and such expressions are used

W. Trevor King [mailto:wking@...]: Appendix V only applies to license expressions within files, not license expressions generally. If we interpret "must" as a real requirement, then within file

Bradley M. Kuhn: I don't speak for SPDX :-). But I can read, and hopefully that's something :-). I don't see anything in the SPDX specification that suggests a difference in the cases being discussed.

Bradley M. Kuhn: As you guessed, the parentheses are not *needed*. The SPDX spec says that parentheses SHOULD be used when there are multiple license identifiers or license refs, but this is a SHOULD

John Sullivan: Not exactly. In many cases it's clearly licensed under GPLv2. The issue is that often we don't know if "or any later version" applies. The proposal, as I understand it, is these license

W. Trevor King: No, the issue is that there *is* some known information (e.g., GPL-2.0 at least is valid). The problem is that some *other* information is *not* known (e.g., if GPL-3.0+ is valid for t

Zavras, Alexios: It's useful, though the ability to be more precise would be nice. A user or developer needs to know "what am I allowed to do?", in a *SIMPLE* way, when confronted with a package. Most