Re: Today's Agenda Legal WorkStream
dmg
Philip Odence twisted the bytes to say:
Philip> 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 Philip> 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 Philip> 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. Philip> Licensing Info and create their own local short name. One interesting aspect of licenses that are "almost" a match is that, if they are only listed as "unknown", the knowledge/analysis performed by the SPDX-file's author might be lost (why is such license unknown). Perhaps a "comment" field attached to any attribute (file, package, etc) that can have a license would be very useful to include a rational. --dmg -- -- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org/ http://silvernegative.com/ dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . |
|