Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Need to be able to describe relationships between SPDX license-list files (new element?) #13

Open
kestewart opened this issue Aug 1, 2017 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement legal team review profile: licensing Licensing profile and related matters
Milestone

Comments

@kestewart
Copy link
Contributor

Problem: how do we capture sets of related licenses, esp. Translations

  • Proposed solution: treat every license as separate file, then describe relationship w/ new element?
  • Any way to describe relationships among license groups such as official/unofficial translations, ported/unported, etc.?
  • For EU Public License in German, that might look something like this:
   <relatedLicenses>
      <relatedLicense relationshipType="official-translation" targetLicenseIdentifier="EUPL-1.1">EUPL-1.1</relatedLicense>
   </relatedLicenses>
   ...
   Note: Up to 24 for EUPL, etc.
  • Could this include license stacks (like newlib)? License stacks used as licenses? How to differentiate from license stacks used as informal package-license manifests?
@kestewart kestewart added this to the 3.0 milestone Aug 1, 2017
@kestewart
Copy link
Contributor Author

From discussions in brainstorming google doc

  • May 16 - Thomas is interested in help here, but Gary will take point on it.
  • May 16 - Kate: Separate spec or appendix for license list representation?
  • May 23 - Gary: xml input - with rdf & json format output being used. Key is maintaining the same property names. Spec out what rdf will look like in addition to xml. Use same terms from spec, so bias is to making it an appendix in next rev.

@swinslow swinslow added the profile: licensing Licensing profile and related matters label May 31, 2020
@goneall
Copy link
Member

goneall commented Apr 4, 2024

I believe this is non-breaking - so moving to 3.1.

@kestewart - if you disagree, please move back to the 3.0 milestone.

@goneall goneall modified the milestones: 3.0, 3.1 Apr 4, 2024
@swinslow
Copy link
Member

swinslow commented Apr 7, 2024

To the extent this was about representing "official translations" of licenses, there was a discussion in license-list-XML at spdx/license-list-XML#438 about this a few years ago, with the general outcome deciding not to implement changes to the license-list-XML fields or syntax.

If there is anything here to be discussed, I'd be inclined to suggest moving the discussion to license-list-XML since I suspect that's where any changes would be implemented. (At least, unless / until the license-list-XML fields are documented formally as part of the spec itself, which I think may be part of what #32 is about.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement legal team review profile: licensing Licensing profile and related matters
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants