Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Ciaran Farrell
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 20:05 +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
No, of course not. There are simply too many licenses which almostDo you expect the SPDX License List to cover every license you find? DoesTo chime in on this, at openSUSE we have exactly the problem described exactly correspond to existing, known licenses. It is the 'almost exactly' that raises the issue. If all of these were to be included in a list, the list would be very long indeed. It would be great to align your list with the SPDX List (and make sure thehttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqPp4y2wyQsbdGQ1V3pRRDg5NEpGVWpubzdRZ0tjUWc The left column is the SPDX shortname (with a proprietary SUSE- before it if the license is not on the SPDX list). If we are referring only to the shortnames (typically, this - or aJust posted a response to the original response on this. combination of these - would be what would be included in the spec file) then we would not get far if we limited ourselves only to packages with licenses on the spdx list. Our current workaround, as stated above, is to use a proprietary SUSE- prefix and to come up with a SPDX-like shortname. Ciaran
|
|