Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
|
Tom Incorvia
As long as the licenses are
- Carefully named and vetted for exact license text
- Somewhat broadly applicable (“somewhat broadly” is fuzzy, but we do want the list to grow starting with very common and moving to less common – it is a way to get more value with our limited bandwidth to vet the licenses)
Then more is better.
SPDX is looking for volunteers to submit additional licenses that meet the above criteria.
To nominate a license, provide this info: http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added.
Legal team: I can help with the reviews of proposed licenses, although I am not available until the end of July.
Tom
Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct: (512) 340-1336
-----Original Message-----
On Jun 28, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> But, note that exceptions are all over the place, in things like > Classpath, autoconf, and plenty of other places. I wonder: has anyone > taken a Fossology (the best scanning tool available as Free Software) > run of Debian distribution and just made sure every license it finds > has a moniker in SPDX? If not, why not? Seems like a necessary first > step for SPDX to have any chance of being complete.
FWIW, one of our FOSSology contributors (thank you Camille) put together a spreadsheet (HarmonisationLicenseIDs.ods) highlighting the differences between the fossology license list and the SPDX license list:
http://www.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki/MatchSPDXLicenceIDs
We plan on using this to update fossology with the SPDX license short names and insure we have license signatures for all the SPDX licenses.
Bob Gobeille _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
This message has been scanned by MailController - portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk This message has been scanned by MailController.
|
|
|