Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 1, Issue 16
--- On Mon, 8/30/10, Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...> wrote:
From: Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
1) I noticed the license list included some of the GPLText for each exception, should include exception and original licenses.
2) I noticed the license list included in the mailingWeb site is behind on being updated. What is most accurate right now is the spec document at http://www.spdx.org/spec/current. Its behind some of the proposals on the mail list. So if you could help sort out the BSD and MIT licenses that should be proposed to be added, it would be very much appreciated.
To address this, we have been discussing the notion of a template version of the license, but haven't gotten around to figuring out the syntax of the parts that can vary and still comply. If you've got ideas here, feel free to propose to list, Daniel G. and Bob G. have been commenting on this as well.
4) Agree with Peter that the CeCILL licenses should be onre: EUPL... good question. Ideas are welcome. Probably need to treat each language version as separate version to be explicitly recognized.
Maybe suffix to determine language used? not sure... how common are the non-english licenses in practice?