Closed GDIAnja closed 1 year ago
@GDIAnja I did not notice this issue when you opened it, apologies for this very late reply. I'd guess they would qualify per https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md
For more about suggesting licenses to be cataloged by SPDX see https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md and the detailed process at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/DOCS/new-license-workflow.md
I'm going to close this issue as I don't think there's anything to do in this repo until SPDX ids are assigned, but feel free to @-mention me if I can be of assistance over in spdx/license-list-XML.
Tangentially, the lizenzcodes on https://www.dcat-ap.de/def/licenses/ are quite nonstandard. They should consider migrating the SPDX ids. 😄
p.s. I suspect the natural SPDX-style ids for these two licenses would be DL-DE-BY-2.0
and DL-DE-Zero-2.0
.
From geoportal Lower Saxony we link to http://opendefinition.org/licenses/.
Beneath the headline "Other conformant licenses" there are the two OpenData licenses from Germany:
Data Licence Germany - attribution - version 2.0 Data Licence Germany - Zero - version 2.0
For both licenses there is no SPDX ID as you call it. As I see it, there are IDs for those licenses.
Data Licence Germany - attribution - version 2.0 (SPDX ID may be: dl-by-de/2.0) Data Licence Germany - Zero - Version 2.0 (SPDX ID may be: dl-zero-de/2.0)
On the German pages they say the licensecode is taken from https://www.dcat-ap.de/def/licenses/.
Maybe somebody could check, whether the dl-by-de/2.0 and dl-zero-de/2.0 fullfill the requirements for SPDX ID. In case this is not true: What has to be done in order to fullfill the requirements?