Re: Today's Agenda Legal WorkStream
Yes, and let's not forget this same point when we are talking about the process of adding new license to the standard list. The discussion is never whether the license can be included in an SPDX file—it always can be—the only issue from the SPDX file creator's perspective is whether it matches a license on the standard list with a predefined short name, or whether they have to go the one extra step of including the license text in Section 4. Licensing Info and create their own local short name.
From: Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:26:20 -0400
To: dmg <dmg@...>, Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kate.stewart@...>, "spdx-legal@..." <spdx-legal@...>, "spdx@..." <spdx@...>, Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
Subject: Re: Today's Agenda Legal WorkStream
These variant licenses would simply end up needing to be added as a “nonstandard” license, meaning the SPDX generator would not be able to use the standardized SPDX license list shortname for that license, but it wouldn’t (shouldn’t) be tagged as unknown in such a case.
On 3/23/11 10:54 AM, "dmg" <dmg@...> wrote:
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021