I hope you are all ready for the upcoming pains in the next few years. Transitioning Fedora to SPDX is not going to be a happy time for a little while, since there's a huge impedance mismatch between

Nice. This certainly makes it easy to map from Fedora to SPDX IDs! SPDX license identifiers have emerged as a standard Woo hoo! From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve

Jilayne, this is awesome news -- thanks for passing it along! Looking forward to us working with the Fedora community to support them adding SPDX license IDs across the distro. Steve

Hot off the press! Link to blog post of this here:https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/important-changes-to-software-license-information-in-fedora-packages-spdx-and-more/

Greetings all, The SPDX spec version 2.3 is now available for review at https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3-RC1/. A summary of the changes can be found in the SPEC Annex I. If you

Hi all, Again, this conversation belongs on the SPDX-legal mailing list, not the SPDX-general list. I tried to remedy this early on, but somehow SPDX-legal got dropped and it went back to

 Yes that’s it. I think AND alone could be (and might widely be) misconstrued as to what state is actually being represented. One solution is for people and tools to correctly understand the

SPDX is a compliance tool. It's designed to help people comply with their obligations. It doesn't cover every possible eventuality, and this situation falls outside the spec. IMHO. Having said that,

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?