Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification


This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call:
How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only
difference of which is the Copyright notice?
The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I
understand this right, we are going to define the reference license text
of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is
this right?


-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:20 AM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: spdx@...
Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

On 12/21/2010 06:43 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using
their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two
package-specific licenses on our initial list?
Yes, but I think the general trend for the SPDX initiative has been
any difference in wording (with the possible exception of copyright
holder identifiers), even if it has no effect on the rights or
restrictions of the license, should be a separate and distinct license
for tracking purposes.

I happen to think that approach spirals off into absurdity, but that's
just my opinion. :)


Fedora Project
Spdx mailing list
This email and any attachments to it contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
is addressed.If you are not the intended recipient or receive it accidentally, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete
the message and any attachments from your computer system, and destroy all hard copies. If any, please be advised that any unauthorized
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is illegal and prohibited. Furthermore, any views
or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of ASUSTeK. Thank you for your cooperation.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.