AW: [PATCH] USB: add SPDX identifiers to all files in drivers/usb/

Hi, great to see this direction of development. This will are least clarify all the files which carry nothing expect the Marko MODUL_LICENSE("GPL"); Because one of the interesting questions is "is this a legally binding expression of licensing?" Ciao Oliver -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-

AW: Request new license list exception: SW-only-exception.

Hi Jilayne, this "exception" defines in my Opinion the scope of the License as the copyright owner sees it. I would handle this "excpetion" in the similar way like the " Exception" of Linus Torvalds and of Uboot and of Jailhouse an all the others. Here the Exception of Linus Torvalds NOTE!

Additions /Clarifications to GPL and other licenses

Hi Team, sorry for another question regarding SPDX and its mapping to the world. From time to time you find additional statements from the copyright holders regarding their view about the scope of the GPL. Since these are statements from the copyright holders I regard them as relevant license

AW: question regarding the information to be provided in case of files containing a license text

Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.commailto:opensou...@jilayne.com On Jul 29, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Fendt, Oliver oliver.fe...@siemens.commailto:oliver.fe...@siemens.com wrote: Hi all, sorry for the cryptic subject, but perhaps you can help me. When doing package analysis with FOSSology or other

question regarding the information to be provided in case of files containing a license text

Hi all, sorry for the cryptic subject, but perhaps you can help me. When doing package analysis with FOSSology or other tools we often find files which contain a license text (e.g. usually the file COPYING contains the text of the GPL) my question is what kind of value has to be provided in

question regarding the information porvided in the SPDX license list

Hi Team, I checked the license list because I was searching for the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or any later version. I did not find an entry GFDL-1.3+, due to that I checked the information provided under http://spdx.org/licenses/GFDL-1.3 I found the text of the GFDL-1.3 and below the

AW: New license request

...@microfocus.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 13:39 An: J Lovejoy Cc: Fendt, Oliver; SPDX-legal Betreff: RE: New license request Hi Jilayne, Thanks for pointing out the possible flexibility in the license list; Oliver, thanks again for taking the time to submit this license. I'll

AW: AW: New license request

and which are in my opinion _not_ OSD compliant. But I'm not a lawyer. Regards Oliver Von: Philip Odence [mailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:39 An: Fendt, Oliver; Tom Incorvia; Jilayne Lovejoy Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Betreff: Re: AW: New license

New license request

Hi all, We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX license list and I did not find it in the list licenses under consideration, due to this I want to request that it will be included in the SPDX license list. Please find below the required information for inclusion.

AW: SPDX meta-tag for implicit license terms

Hi, As far as I under stood the standard one would express this kind of association (file without license information - is assumed to be licensed under the conluded license of the package) with the following elements on file level: LicenseInfoInFile: NONE License concluded: SPDX Identifier of