<scott.k.peterson@...> wrote: Are we going to define the mechanism for deciding if a bit of text that is not a standard header is a licensing statement? Or is it just the best effort of the

Now that I understand the interest in representing material that was explicitly found in the file, let me check my understanding about what specifically is expected to be recorded. (1) In the

It was clear from the call this morning that when and spdx producer sees a standard header in a file that license ends up in the "seen in file licenses" list. However, for all other licenses/license

The discussion of "license information" (as contrasted with "licenses") suggests possible value in slightly generalizing the list of standard licenses to a list of standards shortnames. From the

"License Information in File" Yes, that is better. And, that avoids “detected”. From the phone call this morning, I understand people read different things into that word. -- Scott

None would imply that one looked and none was found. Absence of the field would not imply whether there was or was not any license information in the file. For example, if someone wanted to use the

I assumed we'd want to distinguish between "I didn't look" and "I looked and found no license info." L. Philip Odence Vice President of Business Development Black Duck Software, inc. 265 Winter

Given that the field is optional do we need a "none" value? Wouldn't the absence of this field mean "none". <scott.k.peterson@...> wrote:

This all looks very good Scott. I think naming is really important. I suggest being even more explicit with the name of the field to avoid confusion all together and call it: "License Information in

I have a revision to my proposal below. The file format should permit uses where no assertion about what licensing information is or is not explicitly present in the file. In those cases the field

With the intent that I heard on the phone this morning, calling the second license field "Detected License" or "Declared License" will confuse people as to the intended meaning of the information in

How are these different? In both cases it is the set of licenses the author(s) have declared/stated they believe (or want you to believe) cover the entity in question. Seems pretty much the same to

I've posted the minutes. The Tech Team has put in place an instance of Bugzilla. We'll be using it to track all kinds of SPDX issues including licenses, documentation and website issues. So, you may

Soeren, First, you inferred the issue correctly. I was in the conversation and had exactly the same idea as you. I ended up never putting it out on the table because several of the participants in the

Hi Scott, The meaning of the declared and detected at the package is different than what we've been discussing at the file level, and separation of the two different cases (package level vs. file

[...] I haven't been in the spdx-team from the beginning on, so I do not exactly know what the original purpose of these two license declarations is. But judging from daily experience I assume it is

<Jlovejoy@...> wrote: A file that contains it. For example, this is the usage of the GPL-2.0+ (excerpted from a Bison file): usage is very different from the text of the license

What kind of example did you have in mind? Do you mean an example of a particular software package that uses a particular license? Sent from J's iPhone

Thanks Jylayne, one thing that would be useful (for those of us wanting to identify the license of a file) is to have examples of the use of each license (not the license itself, but how it is used).

Daniel, The license list spreadsheet is located here: http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list The most recent version is 1.4 and will have a column with the short names therein. The