Re: SPDX Agenda/Minutes
Soeren_Rabenstein@...
Dear All,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
By uncoupling licenses and standard, I see a high risk, that we end up in many different quasi-sub-standards of spdx. As in the example, what if several users of the license C and D give different license name tags to them, before they eventually get adopted by the license list? One Spdx file says 1. Standard | License A 2. Standard | License B 3. Custom | License C (attached license text x) 4. Custom | License D (attached license text y) Another one, describing the same package, says 1. Standard | License A 2. Standard | License B 3. Custom | License 3 (attached license text x) 4. Custom | License 4 (attached license text y) And another spdx file, describing a DIFFERENT package says 1. Standard | License A 2. Standard | License B 3. Custom | License C (attached license text z) 4. Custom | License D (attached whatever) Sure the files will work on their own. But if I eventually want to update them all to the newest standard, I will end up in either a lot of mismatches, or in a lot of manual work; i.e. the very two things spdx shall avoid (in my understanding). Therefore my opinion is to include in V.1.0 as many licenses as possible. Target should not be: include 80% of the licenses in Red-Hat; Target should rather be: include 100% of the licenses we know of. Why would it hurt us to include more licenses in the standard upfront? Once we have done this, there should not be so many revisions due to additional licenses. How many new FOSS licenses are established per year? I do not think it is too much nowadays. The only thing that may happen frequently is that someone adds a single special clause to a well known license. For these cases I would like to propose again to include a system to capture such slight variations by referring to the original version and describe the changes only. E.g. The newer ECos-License (http://ecos.sourceware.org/license-overview.html) does not need to be an own license in the standard. The license describer could rather look like DeclaredLicense = GPLv2 LicenseVariation = yes VariationContents = ++ As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it with other works to produce a work based on this file, this file does not by itself cause the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public License. ++ However the source code for this file must still be made available in accordance with section (3) of the GNU General Public License. ++ This exception does not invalidate any other reasons why a work based on this file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. ... or something the like. Kind regards Soeren Rabenstein ____________________________________________________________ ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. Soeren Rabenstein, LL.M. Legal Affairs Center - Legal Compliance Dept. 15, Li-Te Rd., Taipei 112, Taiwan Tel.: (+886) 2 2894 3447 Ext.2372 Fax.: (+886) 2 2890 7674 soeren_rabenstein@... ____________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----===================================================================================================================================== This email and any attachments to it contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.If you are not the intended recipient or receive it accidentally, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your computer system, and destroy all hard copies. If any, please be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is illegal and prohibited. Furthermore, any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of ASUSTeK. Thank you for your cooperation. =====================================================================================================================================
|
|