Re: Purpose of licensing info

Philip Odence

Bear in mind that "LicenseInformation" is the Tag which is a short form of the full name, "License Information in File." This longer name was roundly supported by folks on the last Legal Team call, precisely I think, because it was unambiguous. I frankly am not sure of the limitations on Tag (or how Tag is used) but I would be in favor of "LicenseInformationinFile" or "LicenseInfoinFile".

L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502

On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM,  <kate.stewart@...> wrote:
  Can I suggest LicenseSeen  rather than LicenseInformation,  as
the name for that field?   Information could get us back into those
ambiguous name discussions for someone seeing this for the first
time - using Seen might make it a bit more explicit that this is what
was seen in the file for those not doing a detailed reading of the
spec.  ;)

I don't love "LicenseSeen" but i agree that "LicenseInformation" a bit
too ambiguous.

  In the case when there is a fragement or some non-standardized
license,  the references in the non-standard-license should be
made with the same syntax, specifically "LICENSE"-N,

We should either stick to one format or not specific the format of
these ids at all.  I lean toward just saying licenses have an id
string and leaving it to the implementations to decide what those ids
look like.  It is likely that specifying the shape of license ids will
make it more difficult to implement rdf/xml (or any other rdf format)
file generators.

Spdx mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.