Re: at which level, is adequate licensing documentation required?

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 19:58:50 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> B2.1 satisfies
> (and thus shadows) A3, so A3 could be removed - that would put
> adequate licensing documentation at the 'B' level
> 
> if adequate licensing documentation should be an 'A' level
> criteria, then i suggest B2.1 is moved to replace A3
> 
> if adequate licensing documentation should be a 'C' level
> criteria, then i suggest B2.1 is moved to the 'C' level, and
> still A3 would not be needed

the fourth option:

if there is something remaining to distinguish between B2.1 and
A3, then the wording of A3 should indicate how it surpasses
the general requirement of B2.1: "adequate licensing
documentation"

as a reminder. the currently proposed changes for B2.1 and A3:

 
-  <li id="A3"><p>Offers use of AGPL 3-or-later as an option.
+  <li id="A3"><p>Explains the GPL and AGPL '-or-later' option, and how to 
apply it.


+        <li id="B2-1"><p>Explains each of the licensing options,
+            distinguishing between GNU 2 only and GPL 2-or-later,
+            and between GNU 3 only and GPL 3-or-later.
+            Makes recommendations about whether, when,
+            and how to apply each option.
+            <strong>(B2.1)</strong></p></li>