Re: LICENSE values for non-standard OSS licenses

[ASSI <Stromeko@nexgo.de>]

Adam Dinwoodie writes:
[…]
> Both of these seem to say that "LicenseRef-inherit-git" and similar is
> exactly the way to describe a license that isn't covered by the SPDX
> License List, at least unless I'm grossly misunderstanding how
> license-ref is defined in the ABNF and/or what the LICENSE value in the
> cygport file is supposed to store.

But then you either have to include the license "inherit-git" in full or
explicitly link in the schema of this license, otherwise you're left
with something that is syntactically valid, but meaningless.  The whole
purpose of the SPDX is to have an unambigous indication of the license,
though.

>> Well I think you can, the license explicitely says you can chose any of
>> them as you see fit, so you can pick one today and another tomorrow if
>> you are so inclined.
>
> Yes, that's true.  I'm not a fan of making decisions for sub-licensees
> that I don't need to make, though; under the same logic, there would be
> no need for the "OR" syntax in SPDX at all...

My point was that any Cygwin package as complex as Git is already prone
to include files licensed differently and as long as we don't provide a
license for each and every file (I'm not saying we should), then we
already need to chose from the set of permissible licenses that overlap
among each other and Cygwin.

I don't see that as a drawback, as anyone can already go and fetch the
upstream sources from the same point that we got it from (or even from
the source package in Cygwin) and has the full freedom to do whatever
those might allow in addition of what we've selected.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds