Update Licensing.md: minor wording updates

[jlovejoy]

Fixed a couple missing words or other such clarifications.

Re-wrote the Summary to be less definitive regarding license compliance

Signed-off-by: Jilayne Lovejoy

[jlovejoy]

@swinslow - please have a look. There are a couple other things that I think could be improved, including the use of "conclusion" in relation to no data, but I need to think more of a way to clarify that.

Also we have "reasonable objective" sometimes and "reasonably objective" sometimes - thinking it should be consistently the latter?

[swinslow]

Hi @jlovejoy, I had a couple of suggested tweaks to the edits here -- take a look and see what you think. Otherwise LGTM. Thanks!

[goneall]

LGTM

[goneall]

Just noticed @swinslow comment - @jlovejoy - once you and Steve review/update I'll re-review and merge.

[swinslow]

@jlovejoy Are you good with the further tweaks I made in 5ae17e3?

These were to address the comments above, as well as trying to avoid overloading the term "conclusion" given the presence of the concludedLicense relationship.

If these look good to you, then @goneall can merge once he's good with these as well. Thanks!

[zvr]

Minor wording comment: it shouldn't be "relationship to a NoneLicense" (or "NoAssertionLicense"), but "relationship to NoneLicense" (without the "a"). Both NoneLicense and NoAssertionLicense are defined individuals, there is only one of them, so the indefinite article "a" does not make sense.

More substantial comment: I know all examples talk about Packages, Files and Snippets, and the text talks about "Software Artifacts." However, this is not "SoftwareLicensing" profile and I'm pretty certain people will want to use it for non-software artifacts. Do we want to include some wording to this effect (or, conversely, explicitly mention that this is only for SoftwareArtifacts?)

[swinslow]

Thanks @zvr!

More substantial comment: I know all examples talk about Packages, Files and Snippets, and the text talks about "Software Artifacts." However, this is not "SoftwareLicensing" profile and I'm pretty certain people will want to use it for non-software artifacts. Do we want to include some wording to this effect (or, conversely, explicitly mention that this is only for SoftwareArtifacts?)

Licensing, as currently envisioned, is only for SoftwareArtifacts. Several assumptions about how this is structured and how licenses work do not necessarily translate to non-software artifacts (whatever those may be). I'm good with us being more explicit about this if you think that's appropriate and helpful.

[jlovejoy]

@swinslow @zvr @goneall - made a few updates as per @zvr suggestion of removing "a" and other wordsmithing. I think there may be some other improvements on clarity of wording, but for now, this is good to go.

[swinslow]

Thank you @jlovejoy and @zvr!

@goneall I think this is ready for your re-review and merging!