|
Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...>
We came across this license in a recent open source review. Fossology mis-identified this as GPL which is clearly a bug and it's being fixed. However, my question is... would this match any existing SPDX license?
- Copyright (C) 2001 XXX. All rights reserved.
- This software is distributed in the hope that it will be
- useful, but with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing. Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and
- redistribute this source code, for commercial or non-commercial
- purposes, with the following restrictions: (1) the origin of this
- source code must not be misrepresented; (2) modified versions must
- be plainly marked as such; and (3) this notice may not be removed
- or altered from any source or modified source distribution.
|
|
|
This license text appears to be from Leptonica:
The tortured grammar of this sentence is unique and I don't think it can be found in any of the SPDX licenses:
"- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing."
A very rare license indeed!
Hope this was helpful, Dennis Clark Software Auditor 510-517-9659
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
We came across this license in a recent open source review. Fossology mis-identified this as GPL which is clearly a bug and it's being fixed. However, my question is... would this match any existing SPDX license?
- Copyright (C) 2001 XXX. All rights reserved.
- This software is distributed in the hope that it will be
- useful, but with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing. Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and
- redistribute this source code, for commercial or non-commercial
- purposes, with the following restrictions: (1) the origin of this
- source code must not be misrepresented; (2) modified versions must
- be plainly marked as such; and (3) this notice may not be removed
- or altered from any source or modified source distribution.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
|
|
|
guillaume.rousseau@antelink.com
Indeed we have been many time through
the issue concerning "rare license".
I understand very well that spdx can not cover/support every
licenses. But should be able to extend internal license knowledge
base guarantying there will be no license acronym conflict in the
further versions of SPDX.
Could we implement a rule saying that SPDX acronym will never
start by "M-" which will allow us to implement specific acronym
miscellaneous licenses not supported by spdx.
Another way to do it could be to allow 2 acronyms in the standard
like SPDX-GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0 ?
I prefer the first one.
I don't remember if this point has already been pointed out and
discussed so I put legal and tech mailing list in cc.
Guillaume
Le 05/03/13 00:34, Dennis Clark a écrit :
This license text appears to be from Leptonica:
The tortured grammar of this sentence is unique and I don't
think it can be found in any of the SPDX licenses:
"- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to
anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it
serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so
in
- writing."
A very rare license indeed!
Hope this was helpful,
Dennis Clark
Software Auditor
510-517-9659
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Lamons,
Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
We came across this license in a
recent open source review. Fossology mis-identified
this as GPL which is clearly a bug and it's being
fixed. However, my question is... would this match
any existing SPDX license?
- Copyright (C) 2001 XXX. All
rights reserved.
- This software is distributed in the hope that it
will be
- useful, but with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to
anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for
whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or
she says so in
- writing. Everyone is granted permission to copy,
modify and
- redistribute this source code, for commercial or
non-commercial
- purposes, with the following restrictions: (1) the
origin of this
- source code must not be misrepresented; (2)
modified versions must
- be plainly marked as such; and (3) this notice may
not be removed
- or altered from any source or modified source
distribution.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
--
Guillaume ROUSSEAU
CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink
Président, Cofondateur, Antelink
18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France
http://www.antelink.com/
Office : +33 1 42 39 30 78
|
|
|
Hi Guillaume and SPDX Legal,
I believe that we will be best served by having as broad a license list as possible, and to have every license on the list be supported.
If the Leptonica license occurs in the wild and has consistent, matchable license text, lets vet it an put it into the SPDX list just like any other license.
Thanks,
Tom
Tom Incorvia
tom.incorvia@...
Direct: (512) 340-1336
Mobile: (408) 499 6850
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Guillaume Rousseau
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:24 AM
To: spdx-legal@...; spdx-tech@...
Subject: Re: A non-standard "permissive" license
Indeed we have been many time through the issue concerning "rare license".
I understand very well that spdx can not cover/support every licenses. But should be able to extend internal license knowledge base guarantying there will be no license acronym conflict in the further versions of SPDX.
Could we implement a rule saying that SPDX acronym will never start by "M-" which will allow us to implement specific acronym miscellaneous licenses not supported by spdx.
Another way to do it could be to allow 2 acronyms in the standard like SPDX-GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0 ?
I prefer the first one.
I don't remember if this point has already been pointed out and discussed so I put legal and tech mailing list in cc.
Guillaume
Le 05/03/13 00:34, Dennis Clark a écrit :
This license text appears to be from Leptonica:
The tortured grammar of this sentence is unique and I don't think it can be found in any of the SPDX licenses:
"- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing."
A very rare license indeed!
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
We came across this license in a recent open source review. Fossology mis-identified this as GPL which is clearly a bug and it's being fixed. However, my question is... would
this match any existing SPDX license?
- Copyright (C) 2001 XXX. All rights reserved.
- This software is distributed in the hope that it will be
- useful, but with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing. Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and
- redistribute this source code, for commercial or non-commercial
- purposes, with the following restrictions: (1) the origin of this
- source code must not be misrepresented; (2) modified versions must
- be plainly marked as such; and (3) this notice may not be removed
- or altered from any source or modified source distribution.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
--
Guillaume ROUSSEAU
CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink
Président, Cofondateur, Antelink
18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France
http://www.antelink.com/
Office : +33 1 42 39 30 78
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
Meier, Roger <r.meier@...>
I fully agree on this, all licenses should be on the list (including Licenses such as Oracle Binary License). A prefix to identify local/private maintained licenses would be great. è use one license database -roger
From: spdx-tech-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-tech-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Tom Incorvia
Sent: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 12:38
To: guillaume.rousseau@...; spdx-legal@...; spdx-tech@...
Subject: RE: A non-standard "permissive" license Hi Guillaume and SPDX Legal, I believe that we will be best served by having as broad a license list as possible, and to have every license on the list be supported. If the Leptonica license occurs in the wild and has consistent, matchable license text, lets vet it an put it into the SPDX list just like any other license. Thanks, Tom Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct: (512) 340-1336 Mobile: (408) 499 6850 Indeed we have been many time through the issue concerning "rare license".
I understand very well that spdx can not cover/support every licenses. But should be able to extend internal license knowledge base guarantying there will be no license acronym conflict in the further versions of SPDX.
Could we implement a rule saying that SPDX acronym will never start by "M-" which will allow us to implement specific acronym miscellaneous licenses not supported by spdx.
Another way to do it could be to allow 2 acronyms in the standard like SPDX-GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0 ?
I prefer the first one.
I don't remember if this point has already been pointed out and discussed so I put legal and tech mailing list in cc.
Guillaume
Le 05/03/13 00:34, Dennis Clark a écrit : This license text appears to be from Leptonica: The tortured grammar of this sentence is unique and I don't think it can be found in any of the SPDX licenses: "- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing."
A very rare license indeed! On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote: We came across this license in a recent open source review. Fossology mis-identified this as GPL which is clearly a bug and it's being fixed. However, my question is... would this match any existing SPDX license? - Copyright (C) 2001 XXX. All rights reserved.
- This software is distributed in the hope that it will be
- useful, but with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing. Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and
- redistribute this source code, for commercial or non-commercial
- purposes, with the following restrictions: (1) the origin of this
- source code must not be misrepresented; (2) modified versions must
- be plainly marked as such; and (3) this notice may not be removed
- or altered from any source or modified source distribution.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
-- Guillaume ROUSSEAU CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink Président, Cofondateur, Antelink 18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France http://www.antelink.com/ Office : +33 1 42 39 30 78
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Tom Incorvia <tom.incorvia@...> wrote: I believe that we will be best served by having as broad a license list as
possible, and to have every license on the list be supported.
If the Leptonica license occurs in the wild and has consistent, matchable
license text, lets vet it an put it into the SPDX list just like any other
license. This is an interesting case. I am not sure that we should support as broad a list as possible. The current SPDX spec has support for direct reference (LicenseRef) to these less common license texts as-is without giving them a name and needing to include them in the list. While this is probably not SPDX role to take sides in the license proliferation debate, all licenses are not equal and may not deserve the implicit promotion of being included as an SPDX "named" license list. Giving an SPDX name to a license grants it an implied prominence and promotion as the SPDX license list is becoming the de-facto reference for many. We have certainly a responsibility there: in promoting a license by including it in the SPDX list it is likely to become less rare. Beside there is a clear maintenance burden on us to manage a large unbounded list of SPDX licenses. With that said, Guillaume point to private naming of licenses is a valid one. That could be best supported by supporting appropriate private namespacing (which is something RDF does very well) and could be something to design for future specs versions -- Philippe Ombredanne +1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@... DejaCode Enterprise at http://www.dejacode.comnexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com
|
|
|
guillaume.rousseau@antelink.com
It seems this is part of this use case http://spdx.org/wiki/license-list-extensionDoes [OK] mean it will supported by SPDX 2.0 ? If yes, I guess that it means that implementation for SPDX 2.0 will fail to support collision if it exists (according to the wiki page) and will need to update internal list to avoid collision. Which is fine if we know that we can update internal list once for all, without having to deal with further SPDX license list update. Shall we update this use case or propose a new one for 2.1 use case ? Let me know, I can make a first draft of the use case or the scenario. Guillaume
Le 05/03/13 13:24, Philippe Ombredanne a écrit : On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Tom Incorvia
<tom.incorvia@...> wrote:
I believe that we will be best served by having as broad a license list as
possible, and to have every license on the list be supported.
If the Leptonica license occurs in the wild and has consistent, matchable
license text, lets vet it an put it into the SPDX list just like any other
license. This is an interesting case. I am not sure that we should support as
broad a list as possible.
The current SPDX spec has support for direct reference (LicenseRef) to
these less common license texts as-is without giving them a name and
needing to include them in the list.
While this is probably not SPDX role to take sides in the license
proliferation debate, all licenses are not equal and may not deserve
the implicit promotion of being included as an SPDX "named" license
list. Giving an SPDX name to a license grants it an implied prominence
and promotion as the SPDX license list is becoming the de-facto
reference for many. We have certainly a responsibility there: in
promoting a license by including it in the SPDX list it is likely to
become less rare. Beside there is a clear maintenance burden on us to
manage a large unbounded list of SPDX licenses.
With that said, Guillaume point to private naming of licenses is a
valid one. That could be best supported by supporting appropriate
private namespacing (which is something RDF does very well) and could
be something to design for future specs versions
-- Guillaume ROUSSEAU CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink Président, Cofondateur, Antelink 18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France http://www.antelink.com/Office : +33 1 42 39 30 78
|
|
|
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Meier, Roger <r.meier@...> wrote: I fully agree on this, all licenses should be on the list (including
Licenses such as Oracle Binary License).
A prefix to identify local/private maintained licenses would be great. è use
one license database I reckon there is a value in having a comprehensive and universal list of licenses, but I sincerely doubt this is something that should in the SPDX list as it is today, for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. Instead I could imagine something like a second level non-authoritative community-curated site that inventories any licenses could work out. And it could be the funnel for the most prominent licenses to make it to the SPDX list. I sincerely doubt that SPDX contributors would have the time and the stamina to take on the job on maintaining a curated list like the current SPDX list for every license that ever shows up. -- Philippe Ombredanne +1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@... DejaCode Enterprise at http://www.dejacode.comnexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com
|
|
|
I think that the best way to implement this in the future is to be able to specify domains in the identifiers. Something like ninka.bsd3, fossology.afossolyname, spdx.bsd3 and default the domains to spdx. --dmg On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Guillaume Rousseau <guillaume.rousseau@...> wrote: Indeed we have been many time through the issue concerning "rare license".
I understand very well that spdx can not cover/support every licenses. But
should be able to extend internal license knowledge base guarantying there
will be no license acronym conflict in the further versions of SPDX.
Could we implement a rule saying that SPDX acronym will never start by "M-"
which will allow us to implement specific acronym miscellaneous licenses not
supported by spdx.
Another way to do it could be to allow 2 acronyms in the standard like
SPDX-GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0 ?
I prefer the first one.
I don't remember if this point has already been pointed out and discussed so
I put legal and tech mailing list in cc.
Guillaume
Le 05/03/13 00:34, Dennis Clark a écrit :
This license text appears to be from Leptonica:
https://github.com/rajbot/autocrop/blob/master/leptonica-1.68/leptonica-license.txt
The tortured grammar of this sentence is unique and I don't think it can be
found in any of the SPDX licenses:
"- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing."
A very rare license indeed!
Hope this was helpful,
Dennis Clark
Software Auditor
www.nexb.com
dmclark@...
510-517-9659
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office)
<scott.lamons@...> wrote:
We came across this license in a recent open source review. Fossology
mis-identified this as GPL which is clearly a bug and it's being fixed.
However, my question is... would this match any existing SPDX license?
- Copyright (C) 2001 XXX. All rights reserved.
- This software is distributed in the hope that it will be
- useful, but with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing. Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and
- redistribute this source code, for commercial or non-commercial
- purposes, with the following restrictions: (1) the origin of this
- source code must not be misrepresented; (2) modified versions must
- be plainly marked as such; and (3) this notice may not be removed
- or altered from any source or modified source distribution.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
--
Guillaume ROUSSEAU
CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink
Président, Cofondateur, Antelink
18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France
http://www.antelink.com/
Office : +33 1 42 39 30 78
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
Spdx-tech@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
-- --dmg --- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org
|
|
|
Back to a point that Phlippe made earlier, while we are not really taking
sides, I certainly do not think SPDX should be party to encouraging
license proliferation. It would probably make sense for us to take a
position (or a non-position) explicitly at the top of the license list to
the effect that the list is not meant to be an endorsement of these
licenses in any way. Further, I think we could say that the SPDX group
supports in concept license standardization or does not encourage, but
that the license list, itself, is not meant to support this position. It
is meant only to standardize references to the most commonly used
licenses, not to promote or discourage the use of any license.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/5/13 10:42 AM, "Philippe Ombredanne" <pombredanne@...> wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Meier, Roger <r.meier@...> wrote:
I fully agree on this, all licenses should be on the list (including
Licenses such as Oracle Binary License).
A prefix to identify local/private maintained licenses would be great.
è use
one license database I reckon there is a value in having a comprehensive and universal list
of licenses, but I sincerely doubt this is something that should in
the SPDX list as it is today, for the reasons I mentioned in an
earlier post.
Instead I could imagine something like a second level
non-authoritative community-curated site that inventories any licenses
could work out. And it could be the funnel for the most prominent
licenses to make it to the SPDX list.
I sincerely doubt that SPDX contributors would have the time and the
stamina to take on the job on maintaining a curated list like the
current SPDX list for every license that ever shows up.
--
Philippe Ombredanne
+1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@...
DejaCode Enterprise at http://www.dejacode.com
nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
|
|
|
Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
Ok, so let me see if I can sum up the issues that have been brought up on this thread…
1) Scott asks if anyone has seen this license
2) should we add it to list?
3) possible need for allowing other list maintainers to use a short identifier that "works" with SPDX and SPDX LIcense List
4) statement on license proliferation needed?
5) freeware licenses suggested added to SPDX License List
Um, where do I begin?
As for the original question – no, Scott, I haven't seen this one, as far as I can remember; but I have seen many licenses like this; what I mean by that is a short, very permissive license text that does not match to any specific license (such as MIT
or BSD). In terms of whether this one (or this type in general) should be added to the list, I would defer to the same process and criteria as any license to be added.
I agree with Tom AND Philippe in regards to how broad the SPDX License LIst should be. That is, it should be broad, but with limitation. The goal is clearly stated (see first paragraph at top of this page: http://spdx.org/content/license-list) and
the intention is not to endorse any particular license, but rather the license list should serve a very practical purpose. That being said and given the vast number of licenses like this (short, varied, permissive), a balance must be struck to not bloat the
list to the point of being difficult to use. One very practical matter with these kinds of license is how to name them, as they often have no name, thus forcing us to make one up… problems here, as you can imagine… considering we are currently discussing
the license list guidelines (for how to decide what to include or not include), I would recommend all on this thread to check out the last couple meeting minutes on the topic and weigh in there.
As for Guillaume's idea of having a letter reserved for short identifiers for other license lists to use (M would not work – MPL!! We might have to use a symbol or X? Would have to check current short identifiers for a letter not being used… :) - this
is an interesting idea that seems rather easy to implement, but could also cause other problems. I was not aware of the use case cited and we'll have to check with the tech team on that. ??
As for a statement regarding license proliferation – this might be a good clarification in our literature, not sure if necessary, but certainly would not hurt. If someone wants to take a first stab at drafting a short (no more than a few sentences) explanation,
the legal team can then review.
Finally, in regards to freeware licenses (e.g. Oracle Binary Code License) - we have discussed this several times and has been part of on-going discussion on license list guidelines (see comment above), so I'm not going to repeat it here, but again, please
review those notes and join that discussion on the calls.
So, in sum – we have a bunch of different threads that came out of one curious license!! Perhaps we can separate these into a few sub-threads for ease of following? We have set out various projects for the legal team to work on (with project owners)
this year, so if there is a new project that we should try to add, then let's look into doing that so it gets proper attention going forward.
Thanks for all the interest!!!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I fully agree on this, all licenses should be on the list (including Licenses such as Oracle Binary License).
A prefix to identify local/private maintained licenses would be great.
è use one license database
-roger
Hi Guillaume and SPDX Legal,
I believe that we will be best served by having as broad a license list as possible, and to have every license on the list be supported.
If the Leptonica license occurs in the wild and has consistent, matchable license text, lets vet it an put it into the SPDX list just like any other
license.
Thanks,
Tom
Tom Incorvia
tom.incorvia@...
Direct: (512) 340-1336
Mobile: (408) 499 6850
Indeed we have been many time through the issue concerning "rare license".
I understand very well that spdx can not cover/support every licenses. But should be able to extend internal license knowledge base guarantying there will be no license acronym conflict in the further versions of SPDX.
Could we implement a rule saying that SPDX acronym will never start by "M-" which will allow us to implement specific acronym miscellaneous licenses not supported by spdx.
Another way to do it could be to allow 2 acronyms in the standard like SPDX-GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0 ?
I prefer the first one.
I don't remember if this point has already been pointed out and discussed so I put legal and tech mailing list in cc.
Guillaume
Le 05/03/13 00:34, Dennis Clark a écrit :
This license text appears to be from Leptonica:
The tortured grammar of this sentence is unique and I don't think it can be found in any of the SPDX licenses:
"- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing."
A very rare license indeed!
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
We came across this license in a recent open source review. Fossology mis-identified this as GPL which is clearly a bug and it's being fixed. However, my question is... would
this match any existing SPDX license?
- Copyright (C) 2001 XXX. All rights reserved.
- This software is distributed in the hope that it will be
- useful, but with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the
- consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any
- particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in
- writing. Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and
- redistribute this source code, for commercial or non-commercial
- purposes, with the following restrictions: (1) the origin of this
- source code must not be misrepresented; (2) modified versions must
- be plainly marked as such; and (3) this notice may not be removed
- or altered from any source or modified source distribution.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
--
Guillaume ROUSSEAU
CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink
Président, Cofondateur, Antelink
18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France
http://www.antelink.com/
Office : +33 1 42 39 30 78
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
