Date
1 - 4 of 4
License List v1.2 wiki page created
|
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
Hi,
Okay, I uploaded the v1.2 spreadsheet and accompanying guidelines in a word doc as attachments to a new Wiki page here: http://www.spdx.org/wiki/license-list-v12
Disregard my previous email this morning, as I did make a couple minor updates to the uploaded version (but did not rename).
Here are is the list particular things that need some form of resolution:
Outstanding Issues/Questions:
Cheers,
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
|
|
|
|
Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
On 11/4/10 11:15 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
*Outstanding Issues/Questions:*We could just have a separate license for GPL+amendment for all the common exceptions. This fits the current license model pretty well. However, it means that an uncommon set of amendments would require a custom license declaration in SPDX file. Another approach that might be to have a LicenseAmendment concept and allow a "composite" license to be defined as a base license plus a set of amendments. This feasible but would require a bit of work in the technical working group to nail down the specifics. * How do we want to handle LGPL/GPL “vXor later” versus LGPL/GPL vX?I think this should not be handled at license level. There is no such license as "GPL v2 or later". Rather, content is licensed under the disjunctive set of all GPL licenses with a version greater than or equal to 2. If licenses expressed their version relationships using dc:isVersionOf and dc:replaces we could leverage that information. Using the version relationships we could define a version based disjunctive license set. This set would specify the minimum acceptable version of the license, e.g. GPLv2. A license would be considered to be part of such a set if it "replaces" and "isVersionOf", either directly or indirectly, the minimum acceptable version. [snip] * Licenses with an alternative name or an associated project inWe could quite easily support an arbitrary number of name for any particular license. Perhaps that would be easier than trying to settle on just one name for these licenses. [snip] Peter Williams www.openlogic.com |
|
|
|
Tom Incorvia
Regarding the GPL / LGPL exceptions -- We formerly decided to treat each combination of license + exception as a separate license since the exception can change the terms materially. For instance GPL + Classpath is more permissive than LGPL. From a practical point of view, the exception creates a different license. Tom
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct: (512) 340-1336 Mobile: (408) 499 6850 -----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Peter Williams Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:39 PM To: spdx@... Subject: Re: License List v1.2 wiki page created On 11/4/10 11:15 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: *Outstanding Issues/Questions:*We could just have a separate license for GPL+amendment for all the common exceptions. This fits the current license model pretty well. However, it means that an uncommon set of amendments would require a custom license declaration in SPDX file. Another approach that might be to have a LicenseAmendment concept and allow a "composite" license to be defined as a base license plus a set of amendments. This feasible but would require a bit of work in the technical working group to nail down the specifics. * How do we want to handle LGPL/GPL "vXor later" versus LGPL/GPL vX?I think this should not be handled at license level. There is no such license as "GPL v2 or later". Rather, content is licensed under the disjunctive set of all GPL licenses with a version greater than or equal to 2. If licenses expressed their version relationships using dc:isVersionOf and dc:replaces we could leverage that information. Using the version relationships we could define a version based disjunctive license set. This set would specify the minimum acceptable version of the license, e.g. GPLv2. A license would be considered to be part of such a set if it "replaces" and "isVersionOf", either directly or indirectly, the minimum acceptable version. [snip] * Licenses with an alternative name or an associated project inWe could quite easily support an arbitrary number of name for any particular license. Perhaps that would be easier than trying to settle on just one name for these licenses. [snip] Peter Williams www.openlogic.com _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController - www.MailController.altohiway.com |
|
|
|
Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
On 11/5/10 5:08 AM, Tom Incorvia wrote:
We formerly decided to treat each combination of license + exception as a separate license since the exception can change the terms materially. For instance GPL + Classpath is more permissive than LGPL. From a practical point of view, the exception creates a different license. TomThanks for pointing that out. That agreement must have been reached before i joined the group. I agree that approach makes the most sense. We could make the relationship explicit by defining a dc:hasPart property on the license+exception with the value of the original license. This would allow tools to more easily show how various license are related to one another. Peter Williams www.openlogic.com |
|
|