FWIW, Gary and I were chatting at Linuxcon and he mentioned that his tools and libraries are case insensitive. The 1.2 specification appears to use lowercase "and" and "or" in the description of conjunctive and disjunctive and the examples.

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Gisi, Mark
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:04 AM
To: Nuno Brito
Cc: spdx-legal@...
Subject: RE: SPDX 2.0 Spec draft: Seeking community feedback for the License Expression Syntax section

Hi Bruno,

Thank you for the feedback. We never did discuss whether the syntax should be case sensitive or not. We will include that in our discussions.

Best,
Mark


-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Nuno Brito
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:33 AM
To: spdx-legal@...
Subject: Re: SPDX 2.0 Spec draft: Seeking community feedback for the License Expression Syntax section

Hi Mark, all,

> Examples:
> Here are some examples of real world source code license notices that > highlight the need for a license expression syntax:
> http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples
> We look forward to your feedback.

I find the syntax examples very straightforward and useful.

On some cases is used "and" (example #9) and in others is used "AND", I assume that "AND" is the desired format or can both be used? From a reading perspective, I find the lowercase more pleasant to read. Would vote +1 to see it applicable if this doesn't disturb the licensing algebra.

With kind regards,
Nuno Brito

--
http://triplecheck.de
phone: +49 615 146 03187
_______________________________________________
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

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 license can be used to represent the licensing terms of a source code or binary file, but there are situations where a single license identifier is not sufficient. A common example is when software is offered under a choice of one or more licenses (e.g., GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause). Another example is when a set of licenses is needed to represent a binary program constructed by compiling and linking two (or potential more) different source files each governed by different licenses (e.g., LGPL-2.1 and BSD-3-Clause respectively). In this section of the SPDX 2.0 specification we define the <SPDX-License-Expression> construct, a licensing expression string that enables one to more accurately represent the licensing terms of modern day software.

Examples:

Here are some examples of real world source code license notices that highlight the need for a license expression syntax:

   http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples

A summary of the SPDX Legal Working group’s decision to add a License Expression Language to the SPDX 2.0 specification can be found here:

   http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/license_expression_syntax

We look forward to your feedback.

Regards,

Mark

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Senior Intellectual Property Manager

Tel (510) 749-2016 | Fax (510) 749-4552

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 it should just be LGPL 2.1

- I'm wondering if the SPDX Standard License with a + operator should be removed from the Simple License Expression definition (second bullet under II) - it's the only part of the definition which includes an operator.

Attached is a PDF with stickies with the above two comments.

Gary