no meeting today. will have call next Thursday

2016-03-31 Thread J Lovejoy
Hi All, Considering we had a long face-2-face meeting yesterday for those at Collab Summit, there is no legal call today. We will have a legal call next Thursday, April 7th @ 10am Mtn time (an hour earlier than usual, time, and right after SPDX General Call) using the usual dial call. Please

Re: Spdx-legal Digest, Vol 63, Issue 23

2016-03-31 Thread Michael Herzog
ctions are pretty black and white in my mind. As Daniel pointed out > (point 3 from his earlier email), SPDX has a mechanism to allow anybody to > maintain SDPX info of non-FOSS licenses. > > > At some point in time, maybe SPDX's mission will expand to

RE: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread Paul Madick (AM)
I again want to thank everyone for the thoughtful discourse on this subject matter. This will be put on the legal team agenda to discuss on one of our upcoming meetings and we will “hear” all of the opinions that have been represented in the thread, including the point regarding the CC

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread Brad Edmondson
Hi all, Interesting discussion. I agree with Tom Vidal's interpretation of the sentence as completely precluding licensing in the case of use in nuclear facilities, over and above disclaiming suitability for use in such facilities. I also agree that this is a straightforward application of

RE: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread Eric Weddington
Where SPDX is at now, is that it says one thing, but does another. Yes, the website says that the SPDX License List is a list of "commonly found open source licenses". But if we're going to talk about restriction use then it's too late. The list already has these: CC-BY-NC-1.0 CC-BY-NC-2.0

RE: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread Wheeler, David A
> [1] https://www.google.com/search?q="intended for use in the design%2C > construction%2Coperation or maintenance of any nuclear facility" That's a completely different legal text. I agree that "not intended for use in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of any nuclear

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:07 PM, dmg wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom Incorvia > wrote: >> I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list. > > What about we start with some empirical evidence, rather than anecdotal. > Can you

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread dmg
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Tom Incorvia > wrote: > > I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list. > > Agreed for me: this should be in either as a license or an

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Tom Incorvia wrote: > I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list. Agreed for me: this should be in either as a license or an exception > There are many licenses on the SPDX list that do not strictly meet the FOSS >

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread dmg
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom Incorvia wrote: > I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list. What about we start with some empirical evidence, rather than anecdotal. Can you quantify what "all the time" means? --dmg -- --dmg --- Daniel

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

2016-03-31 Thread Philip Odence
As non lawyer to non-lawyer, I had a similar read at first, but the word “licensed” in there gave me pause. I’m interested in the lawyers’ take, but still feel that License List purposes we have luxury of not having to resolve whether it meets the strict definition. From: