McCoy, Your example was about snippets in files, but this also happens one level up: If there are some files under License-A and some files under License-B, how do you express the license of a

At this risk of opening up a giant can of worms: Does logical AND for SPDX make sense without more information? Even if a group of files clearly designate a single license at file level, and project

If you take the patch referenced in the LWN article, you could rewrite that as: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later AND ISC But then subsequent modifications of the file are going to be

In the end if it’s just reproducing the text I cited below that’s fine [I got reasonably close to it off the top of my head] and if there isn’t enough demand for a tag representing that language

Ah, that is exactly the issue I was asking about a few years ago. The response on this list was that an SPDX-License-Identifier: statement consisting of an "AND" expression was good enough as an

This one is simple: BSD AND GPL-mumble for those files that contain both BSD and GPL code. Warner

Back to the original query: Here’s an example of what I was talking about, albeit inbound BSD outbound GPL https://lwn.net/Articles/247806/ I’m suggestion an SPDX tag for what was used there: This

I asked a SPDX specific question. You jumped in with your legal analysis unrelated to the question of whether there was an existing SPDX identifier or should there be a new one. I responded to your

You are right, this isn't the right place for this debate. I can't even parse what you are saying here. copyleft has no legal basis as a term, so I'm not at all sure what you are saying. You are also

Don’t think the mailing list is the right place for this debate. I’m certainly familiar with the BSD=copyleft argument. You’re welcome to hold that position yourself. If you’re involved with

Do you have one that does or that refutes the theory that the copyright holder granted you the ability to do certain things, but not to change the license? Without that, you are redistributing

“The concept you are talking about doesn't exist in law. You can only change the 'outbound' license if the 'inbound' license expressly allows it.” You have a case citation for that?

What does that have to do with anything? This is marketing material, not a license nor a grant to "file off" the old license and add your own new one. You are only allowed to add your new one and the

These questions are really off-topic. If you have questions about interpretation of BSD licenses, you probably ought to ask them of your counsel (or if you’re associated with FreeBSD, their

Are you allowed to do that without it becoming an AND? You can't just change the terms w/o permission like that I'd imagine... And I'm not sure how it would generalize... Warner

No special presentation this month, so meeting should go shorter than usual. GENERAL MEETING Meeting Time: Thurs, July 7, 8am PT / 10 am CT / 11am ET / 15:00 UTC.

What makes you think they don't apply? If you have to reproduce the notice, the terms apply. You can't just take code and change the license without the permission of the copyright holders/owners/etc.

No, that’s not really my issue. I believe the logical operators and the ability to designate file-level licenses in SPDX handle your situation. I’m talking about using SPDX to provide a copy of

I have spent a lot of time contemplating the question, but want to confirm I'm thinking about the same thing: Are you talking about the nature of open source requiring (such as in a requirements.txt)

Well the example is the reverse: inbound BSD-2-Clause, outbound MIT. I’m more thinking license identifiers that go with the code (since I think for most folks that’s where they do license