I’m not aware of a tool that currently supports merging.  There is an issue open on the SPDX Java tools – any java programmers out there who would like to volunteer a solution is welcome to create a pull request.

Regards,

Gary

⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I’m not aware of a tool that currently supports merging.  There is an issue open on the SPDX Java tools – any java programmers out there who would like to volunteer a solution is welcome to create a pull request.

Regards,

Gary

Hi All, 
Is there any tool to merge two spdx file ? 

Regards
Sandeep 

⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi All, 
Is there any tool to merge two spdx file ? 

Regards
Sandeep 

Sandeep,

I’m not aware of any specific guidelines for signing SBOM’s (SPDX and CycloneDX).

REA’s signs SBOM’s using PGP as this seems to be the easiest method to sign stand-alone text files, including SBOM’s.

We simply have to make our public key available for verification of signed SBOM’s.

The IETF is working on a new supply chain integrity, transparency and trust initiative (SCITT) that aims to produce a method for signing and verifying attestations, including SBOM’s.

https://github.com/ietf-scitt

Thanks,

Dick Brooks

Active Member of the CISA Critical Manufacturing Sector,

Sector Coordinating Council – A Public-Private Partnership

Never trust software, always verify and report! ™

http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com

Email: dick@...

Tel: +1 978-696-1788

Hi All,
Is there any guidelines to sign SPDX file ? 

Regards
Sandeep 

Hi All,
Is there any guidelines to sign SPDX file ? 

Regards
Sandeep 

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/

Thanks for the support on this from SPDX-legal. There is more work to come, for sure, but being able to use SPDX license identifiers in a full distro is a great challenge for our project to meet!

:)

Jilayne

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	[Fedora-legal-list] Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
Date:	Fri, 29 Jul 2022 11:19:48 -0400
From:	Matthew Miller <mattdm@...>
Reply-To:	legal@...
To:	devel-announce@...
CC:	packaging@..., legal@..., devel@...

On behalf of all of the folks working on Fedora licensing improvements,
I have a few things to announce!


New docs site for licensing and other legal topics
--------------------------------------------------

All documentation related to Fedora licensing has moved to a new
section in Fedora Docs, which you can find at:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/

Other legal documentation will follow. This follows the overall Fedora
goal of moving active user and contributor documentation away from the
wiki.


Fedora license information in a structured format
-------------------------------------------------

The “good” (allowed) and “bad” (not-allowed) licenses for Fedora are
now stored in a repository, using a simple structured file format for
each license (it’s TOML). You can find this at:
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data

This data is then presented in easy tabular format in the
documentation, at:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/



New policy for the License field in packages — SPDX identifiers!
----------------------------------------------------------------

We’re changing the policy for the "License" field in package spec files
to use SPDX license identifiers. Historically, Fedora has represented
licenses using short abbreviations specific to Fedora. In the meantime,
SPDX license identifiers have emerged as a standard, and other
projects, vendors, and developers have started using them. Adopting
SPDX license identifiers provides greater accuracy as to what license
applies, and will make it easier for us to collaborate with other
projects.


Updated licensing policies and processes
----------------------------------------

Fedora licensing policies and processes have been updated to reflect
the above changes. In some cases, this forced deeper thought as to how
these things are decided and why, which led to various discussion on
Fedora mailing lists. In other cases, it prompted better articulation
of guidance that was implicitly understood but not necessarily
explicitly stated.


New guidance on “effective license” analysis
--------------------------------------------

Many software packages consist of code with different free and open
source licenses. Previous practice often involved “simplification” of
the package license field when the packager believed that one license
subsumed the other — for example, using just “GPL” when the source code
includes parts licensed under a BSD-style license as well. Going
forward, packagers and reviewers should not make this kind of analysis,
and rather use (for example) “GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT”. This approach
is easier for packagers to apply in a consistent way.


When do these changes take effect?
----------------------------------

The resulting changes in practice will be applied to new packages and
licenses going forward. It is not necessary to revise existing packages
at this time, although we have provided some guidance for package
maintainers who want to get started. We’re in the process of planning a
path for updating existing packages at a larger scale — stay tuned for
more on that!


Thank you everyone!
-------------------

A huge thanks to some key people who have worked tirelessly to make
this happen: David Cantrell, Richard Fontana, Jilayne Lovejoy, Miroslav
Suchý. Behind the scenes support was also provided by David Levine,
Bryan Sutula, and Beatriz Couto. Thank you as well for the valuable
feedback from Fedora community members in various Fedora forums.

Please have a look at the updated information. If you have questions,
please post them to the Fedora Legal mailing list:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@.../

-- 

Matthew Miller

<mattdm@...>

Fedora Project Leader

_______________________________________________

legal mailing list -- legal@...

To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@...

Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/

List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@...

Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

On Jul 11, 2022, at 11:17 AM, McCoy Smith <mccoy@...> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2022, at 9:51 AM, Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@...> wrote:

I think our understanding until now is that the package should have "License-A AND License-B", to denote the presence of these licenses. But conversely, this license expression should NOT be understood to mean that "everything in here is under this expression (combination of licenses)".

Richard's example of taking the license of a set and applying it to every single item shows the error in this approach.

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 tags and operators.
The other is to convey more information with those tags and operators.
Which is best I don’t know, depends on how well people and tools are interpreting the conveyed information.
This is a bit orthogonal from my initial inquiry, but perhaps my inquiry tests the limits of “just use AND” as the solution?

-- zvr

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of McCoy Smith
Sent: Monday, 11 July, 2022 19:43
To: spdx@...
Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification

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 identifies each of those licenses with logical AND at project level, you still can have misunderstandings if file level is not interrogated.

On Jul 11, 2022, at 9:21 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@...> wrote:
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 assumed
to be licensed under both GPLv2 and ISC, whereas it is likely the
subsequent modifier conceptualized their changes as just being GPLv2.
This reminds me: I've recently been informed of a project that started
using SPDX-License-Identifier: and this has led to a complicated issue
around a desired license change because it appears as though many
contributions to the project were inadvertently made under a
conjunction of two licenses, which was the result of putting a
conjunctive SPDX-License-Identifier statement in a README file. I
don't have the case handy but it was something like, some source files
were BSD-3-Clause, some were Apache-2.0, someone then helpfully put
SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause AND Apache-2.0 in a README file,
and then new source files started mechanically including
SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause AND Apache-2.0.
Richard

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:12 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@...> wrote:

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 alternative.
But my view at the time was that this entailed a loss of information
-- you lose the idea that the GPL is in some sense the overarching or
dominant license of some set of code with some subsidiary elements
under distinct licenses.
I'm not sure what I think now. I will say, the norm SFLC was trying
to establish in the wake of the ath5k affair never really caught on.
The 'snippet' solution isn't really practical in many cases because
you won't often be able to precisely identify the boundaries of the
snippet.
Richard

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:06 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy@...> wrote:
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 file is based on work under the following copyright and permission notice:

On Jul 11, 2022, at 8:49 AM, McCoy Smith via lists.spdx.org <mccoy=lexpan.law@...> wrote:



On Jul 11, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Warner Losh <imp@...> wrote:

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 somewhat misrepresenting what I'm saying and being a bit of a bully about it.
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 off-topic thoughts. That’s bullying?
But since nobody else thought it was a good idea, I think the notion in SPDX is effectively dead unless another use case surfaces that makes sense.
You’ve expressed it’s not a good idea. Is that dispositive? Jilayne had some mechanical/procedural questions about the questions I asked. Don’t think anyone else has weighed in. If I know my mailing lists, not everyone hops in immediately with their thoughts on proposals or questions.
Warner

From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of Warner
Losh
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:20 AM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see
addressed in the specification
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:13 AM McCoy Smith <mccoy@...> wrote:
“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?
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 copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I've never encountered this in the last 30 years of doing open source. Downstream additions with a new license always an 'AND' unless the original license granted otherwise.  It's certainly not the 'mainstream' of how open source operates and also goes against the oft-expressed desire to keep SPDX relatively simple.
Warner
From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of Warner
Losh
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:07 AM
To: spdx@...
Cc: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see
addressed in the specification
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 7:38 AM McCoy Smith <mccoy@...> wrote:
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 counsel).
There are also a lot of resources, many on-line and free, concerning the interpretation of most of the major open source licenses, including the BSD variants. This one might be instructive for you:
“The so-called new BSD license applied to FreeBSD within the last few years is effectively a statement that you can do anything with the program or its source, but you do not have any warranty and none of the authors has any liability (basically, you cannot sue anybody). *This new BSD license is intended to encourage product commercialization. Any BSD code can be sold or included in proprietary products without any restrictions on the availability of your code or your future behavior.*”
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/
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 old one is quite permissive otherwise.
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. The BSD license is quite permissive, but it isn't that permissive. So, your desire to express this concept in SPDX doesn't make sense. You are asking the SPDX license expression to cover something that's not a thing. That's my basic point, and so far you've done nothing to refute that.
Warner
From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of Warner
Losh
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 2:11 PM
To: spdx@...
Cc: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see
addressed in the specification
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022, 2:17 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy@...> wrote:
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 attribution/license copy requirements).
But obviously the issue/problem is more generic given that some permissive licenses allow the notice to be in either (or in some cases require in both) the source or documentation.
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
From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of J
Lovejoy
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 1:11 PM
To: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see
addressed in the specification
Hi McCoy!
I’m moving the SPDX-general list to BCC and replying to SPDX-legal as that is the right place for this discussion.
Where is this question coming up in terms of context? That is, are you thinking in the context of an SPDX document and capturing  the licensing info for a file that is under MIT originally but then redistributed under BSD-2-Clause? Or are you thinking in the context of using an SPDX license identifiers in the source files?
Thanks,
Jilayne
On Jul 1, 2022, at 12:01 PM, McCoy Smith <mccoy@...> wrote:
I didn’t see this particular topic addressed in the specification (although I’m happy to be correcedt if I missed it), so I thought I’d post and see whether there is a solution that’s commonly used, or if there’s room for a new identifier.
Virtually all so-called “permissive” licenses permit the recipient of code to license out under different terms, as long as all the requirements of the in-bound license are met. In almost all of these permissive licenses those requirement boil down to:
Preserve all existing IP notices (or in some cases, just copyright
notices) Provide a copy of the license (or something to that
effect: retaining “this permission notice” (ICU/Unicode/MIT)  or
“this list of conditions” (BSD) or providing “a copy of this
License” (Apache 2.0))
The rules around element 1 and SPDX are well-described.
With regard to element 2, a fully-compliant but informative notice when there is a change from the in-bound to the out-bound license would look something like this (with the square bracketed part being an example of a way to say this):
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
[This file/package/project contains code originally licensed
under:]
SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
The point being to express that the outbound license is MIT, but in order to fully comply with the requirements of BSD-2-Clause, one must retain “ this list of conditions and the following disclaimer” which including a copy of BSD-2-Clause accomplishes. Without the square bracketed statement above, it seems confusing as to what the license is (or whether, for example, the code is dual-licensed MIT AND BSD-2-Clause.
One way to do this I suppose is to use the LicenseComment: field to include this information, but it seems to me that this is enough of a common situation that there ought to be something more specific to address this situation.
Thoughts? Am I missing something?

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de>
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva  
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928