Re: Call today

[Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via Lists.Spdx.Org]

Dear Jilayne,

In July 2018 the FSF updated its free software licenses list and the
EUPL-1.2 is now "officially" listed as "free".
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses

Could you please update this flag in the SPDX license list?

Global comments on FSF positions were published in Joinup today:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/news/better-late-never

If there is any other process to initiate, please advise.
Kind regards,
Patrice

2018-08-09 16:55 GMT+02:00 J Lovejoy :

> Hi all,
>
> We'll have our usual meeting today but keep it somewhat short and focus on
> reviewing and providing feedback for the XML editor. If you haven't had a
> chance to check it out please do so!
>
> Jilayne
>
>
>
> *Sent from an ARM powered device *
> 
>
>


-- 
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schm...@googlemail.com
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2366): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2366
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/24239784/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: meeting minutes 2019-06-13

[Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via Lists.Spdx.Org]

Hi Jilyane and all,
Some interesting news presented by the European Commission (Jean-Paul de
Baets) at the Sharing & Reuse Conference 2019 in Bucharest (June 11.)

*The European Commission sharing site (Joinup.eu) is now interconnected
with SPDX!*

*This is done through the Joinup Licensing Assistant (JLA)
*

As from June 2019, Joinup proposes a new solution: the JLA
,
a unique tool allowing everyone to compare and select open licences based
on their content.

Licences can be retrieved by entering all or part of their SPDX identifier:
for example “UPL” will retrieve both the UPL-1.0 (Universal Permissive
License) and the EUPL.

In addition, and that is the true JLA

novelty, licences can be retrieved based on a content analysis taxonomy
(where each category is documented).

Compared with other tools (like ‘choosealicense.com’), considering
permissions, obligations and prohibitions if any, the JLA

adds three important categories: the level of compatibility or
interoperability, the legal aspects, and the support that could be expected.

Retrieved licences are briefly commented and the link with their SPDX full
text is provided.
Please note that the tool is still in its experimental phase. It will be
developed.
Based on users’ comments and experience, categories may evolve and be
adapted.
Patrice-E.

Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 21:42, Steve Winslow 
a écrit :

> Hello all, the SPDX legal team minutes from last Thursday's call are now
> posted at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-06-13, and
> copied below for convenience.
>
> Steve
>
> = = = = =
>
> == Attendees ==
> * John Horan
> * Jilayne Lovejoy
> * Jim Vitrano
> * Kyle Mitchell
> * Mike Dolan
> * Steve Winslow
>
> == Agenda ==
>
> The meeting focused on reviewing and triaging issues that were tagged for
> consideration as part of the 3.6 release milestone. Some issues were
> resolved and closed; some were moved to 3.7 release given the limited time
> before 3.6 release at end of month; and some remain open, pending final
> review of PRs / creation of new PRs in a couple of instances. Specific
> notes on many of the resolutions can be seen in the particular issue
> threads on GitHub; and those issues that currently remain open for 3.6 can
> be found at
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%223.6+release%22
>
> The team also briefly discussed recent updates to the license inclusion
> principles, which can be seen at
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md.
> Jilayne noted that the team may continue to iterate on the inclusion
> principles in accordance with discussions on prior legal team calls.
>
> Since the 3.6 release is coming up at the end of the month, any
> newly-submitted requests will be considered as part of 3.7. The next legal
> team call will be on Thursday, June 27, and will focus on any last-minute
> matters needed to get 3.6 out the door. The team will focus on several
> longstanding prior requests for 3.7 during the first legal team call in
> July.
> 
>
>

-- 
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schm...@googlemail.com
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2628): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2628
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/32099229/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: New License List website features

[Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via lists.spdx.org]

Greetings,
The "official" EUPL pages on the European Commission site JOINUP present
the text of the current EUPL-1.2
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12
but the EUPL-1.1 may still be used. No automatic switch to 1.2 if no "or
later" mention was added.
The 1.1 text is still published in appendix to the 1.2 page.
P-E

Le ven. 13 nov. 2020 à 07:16, Gary O'Neall  a
écrit :

> Greetings legal team,
>
>
>
> I’m working on updating software which generates the website and license
> list data to include the status of the “Other web pages” links for the
> licenses.  I have a couple of questions for those interested in the license
> website look and feel.
>
>
>
> My plan is if the URL is no longer live, we will remove the hyperlink and
> only display the text.  I will also append “[No longer live, last checked
> date]” after the URL text string.  Below is an example:
>
>
>
>- https://notvalidopensource.org/licenses/EUPL-1.1 [no longer live -
>last checked 2020-11-13 - 05:57:04]
>
> Let me know if this formatting is OK.  I don’t think I’ll have time for
> fancy HTML formatting, but I can easily change the text.  Of course, if
> someone with good HTML skills would like to contribute – the template for
> this file can be found at
> https://github.com/spdx/LicenseListPublisher/blob/master/resources/htmlTemplate/LicenseHTMLTemplate.html
>
>
>
> There are several other fields about the URL which is available in the
> JSON (and other) license data formats.  I do not have any plans to display
> these values on the website for this release.
>
>
>
> I’m planning on treating redirected web pages as live pages (turns out
> there is a very large number of permanent redirects in the URLs).  Let me
> know if you disagree with this approach.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
> -
>
> Gary O'Neall
>
> Principal Consultant
>
> Source Auditor Inc.
>
> Mobile: 408.805.0586
>
> Email: g...@sourceauditor.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted, including attachments,
> is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and
> may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
> re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
> reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
> contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.
>
>
> 
>
>

-- 
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schm...@gmail.com
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#2894): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2894
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/78224673/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Open source licensing discovery

[Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via lists.spdx.org]

Interesting tool!
Question: Which of your license features covers that according to the
license, "distribution" includes providing remote access or SaaS?
Ever visited the joinup tool

 ?

Le jeu. 15 déc. 2022 à 21:56, Sihem Ben Sassi  a
écrit :

> Dear Spdx-legal community,
>
> Improving open source licensing discovery and automating licenses
> processing are shared aims. From my side,and as first step, I am coming up
> with a unified description model, supported by a tool (OSLiFe-DiSC) helping
> in discovering, selecting and comparing open source licenses.
> As legal experts and knowledgeable users in this field, you are the ones
> whose *feedback *is very important to measure and prove the added value
> as well as to identify improvement requirements / opportunities. So please:
>
> 1- See demo: https://youtu.be/VwzBq7XBTvk
>
> 2- Access the tool and use: https://sihem.pythonanywhere.com
>
> 3- Give your *feedback* (yes, *please*!): https://cutt.ly/G0eiq92
>   If you need more information about extracted legal terms and their
> definition, please refer to the manuscript available at
> https://cutt.ly/P0wsuAv
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> With Kind Regards,
> Ph.D, HDR in computer sciences
> 
>
>

-- 
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schm...@gmail.com
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3341): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3341
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/95697440/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [spdx] "-only" and "-or-later" identifiers for EUPL licenses?

[Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via lists.spdx.org]

Dear Jilayne,

My post was nothing personal; I can imagine how difficult it is to manage a
community made up of many individuals and interests. All of us should be
grateful for that and the decision to create these "-or-Later" identifiers
was undoubtedly a collective one at the time, but as multiple and
unconcerted reactions prove, it risks remaining a stone in SPDX's shoe for
a long time. Regarding the EUPL, we do not require the creation of an
"-or-later" identifier unless this was the rule for all licenses.

Kind regards,

Le mer. 1 mai 2024 à 18:56, J Lovejoy via lists.spdx.org  a écrit :

> I'm moving the SPDX general list to bcc, as this is really a topic for
> spdx-legal.
>
> In case anyone didn't see it and for context, my response to Christian
> that Patrice-Emmanuel references is on the spdx-legal thread and can be
> seen here: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3548
>
> Some additional responses below:
>
> On 5/1/24 2:49 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via lists.spdx.org wrote:
>
> Hello Christian,
> It is a frequent practice from license stewards to encourage the coverage
> of later versions of "their" license.
> At the very beginning of the EUPL, licensors are invited to specify
> "licensed under the EUPL", which, according to the copyleft clause 5,
> clearly refers to the latest version.
> This preserves the possibility for a licensor of specifying a precise
> version, like "1.2-only" (or  the legally similar "1.2").
> The wording of the EUPL probably leaves less uncertainty than saying, for
> example, that "licensing under the EUPL" leaves the licensee with the
> choice of the version (like it is, apparently, the case for the GNU/GPL).
>
> At some point, we did some research on licenses that have language
> relating to later versions or the like. It was a bit surprising to see how
> many variations there are as to the default position, e.g., if no other
> indication means one can apply any later version or if no other indication
> means this version only. In all cases, to indicate something other than the
> default requires additional notation of some form (more on that below).
>
> But the real question for SPDX is: are those "-or-later" or even "+",
> applied to ANY license, justifying specific SPDX identifiers?
>
> That is a question that has and has had a definitive answer since version
> 2.0 of the SPDX License List:
> "+" can be applied to any license.
> And as of 3.0 - the GNU licenses ids changed, but
> "-or-later" and "-only" cannot be used with any license as they are not
> part of the license expression syntax identified in
> https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v3.0/annexes/SPDX-license-expressions/
>
> Like Jilayne wrote, this was most probably a mistake in accepting to do so
> for the GNU licenses only (for political reasons).
>
> I would not characterize the changes to the GNU license ids in version 3.0
> as mistake. That implies a decision make on lack of awareness or knowledge.
> We had a various proposals at the time, which were discussed at length over
> many months. I do think we made the best decision that we could for that
> time and given the options we had. Looking back and judging that decision
> with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and current knowledge isn't entirely
> helpful. (and if I sound a bit defensive, it is because, on a personal
> note, it was one of the most stressful things to navigate as a community
> leader. Yet as far as I can tell, the complaints or criticism of this
> change tend to come to SPDX/me, instead of to the FSF or both orgs.)
>
> It would most probably be another mistake to do it for all other licenses,
> including the EUPL.
>
> If you mean to change existing license ids to mimic the  specific entries
> that the GNU licenses have instead of using the license syntax like "+" - I
> would not see this as an optimal path, unless there are extenuating
> circumstances to justify it, which I don't think there are.
>
> It would be more consistent for the SPDX Standard to stick to a strict and
> transparent rule: "*a unique SPDX identifier must correspond to a
> unique license text*".
>
> That is the case and always has been. The caveat is that some licenses use
> the same exact license text for variants about if you can apply a later
> version of that license. E.g., the license text of the GPL is the same, it
> is in the license notice that one indicates if you intend that version only
> or any later version. Similarly, EUPL also requires some other
> communication to indicate the intention for only a specific version to
> apply. Of course, this can be done by using an SPDX identifier in th