Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...> #233 Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, which is basically the zlib license template (no specific copyright) and then the specific libpng license, since it does have some other text differences. In which case, we might simply call it the "zlib" license instead of the OSI's "zlib/libpng" license, which is a bit confusing. Thoughts? I'd like to get the latest version of the license list uploaded tomorrow, if possible, pending this issue :) Jilayne toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa@...] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:27 PM To: Soeren_Rabenstein@... Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; spdx@... Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification On 12/21/2010 09:14 PM, Soeren_Rabenstein@... wrote: 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? Sure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally change the license's meaning, but it is technically different text, even if templated. ~tom == Fedora Project
More

Join spdx@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.