Re: [spdx] SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines

Hi Kyle, Thanks for having a look. As to your question: we had a discussion on one of the many calls we discussed this topic and ran the hypothetical of what if there were no “rules” or the rules were very relaxed. One extreme might look like this: anyone can add a license, any time and the

Re: SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines

in the official SPDX license namespace, it > does not restrict what could go into other license namespaces (which would be > implemented by the other proposal currently being discussed). > > William > >> On 3/12/20 2:23 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >> Hi Jilayne: &g

SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines

Hi all, I’m sending this to both the legal and general mailing lists to ensure greatest visibility. The legal team has come up with a final draft of the license inclusion guidelines based on various conversations and feedback over the past 8 months of intermittent discussion. The pull

Re: Deprecate Entessa in favour of Apache-1.1?

Hi Matija, Hmm… I thought we had put a Note in Entessa explaining this, but apparently not. Perhaps there is another case like this that I am thinking of: The reason we have Entessa on the SPDX License List is because OSI approved it as a separate license. See

Re: Meeting tomorrow, Mar. 12

Hi all, I just merged that PR - we had a bunch of comments and figured it’d be easier to have a clean iteration to look at for the meeting. Please see: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md

Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

oh geez, sorry all - Steve already pointed you all to that discussion! I missed that URL - my bad! > On Mar 9, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Steve Winslow > wrote: > > Hi Michael, David and Max, > > Thanks for your emails. A couple of comments: > > Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark:

Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

Hi all, Going back to Michael’s original post as seems like we got on a tangent regarding CC public domain mark (which seems like an easier discussion). I think we need to be clear on what we are talking about: license short identifiers which correspond to an actual license or public domain

SPDX meeting Friday March 13th

(I know, I’m on a roll - last email from me today!) There is an SPDX room available co-located and after the event for the LF Member Summit in Lake Tahoe. The SPDX meeting will be Friday afternoon, the 13th - 1pm - 6pm I was wondering: - who else will be there from the legal team? - assuming

license inclusion principles

Hi all, As many of your are aware, we have discussed revising the license inclusion principles over the last part of 2019 - in various calls and distilled in this issue: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/925 Thanks to Steve’s help, I’ve finally made a PR with another round of

update to documentation, use of wiki

Hi folks, I made some updates to some of the documentation files in the Github repo today related to some conversation on the call. Would love to have some feedback. See: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pulls (981, 982, 983, 984) This led me to realize we still refer to the wiki as

Happy Holidays (and let's reconvene in the New Year)

Hi all, Due to the end of the year craziness many of us are experiencing and resulting low-turnout at recent meetings and on the mailing list, we are going to call it for the year and reconvene (with vigor!) in 2020. This means the 3.8 release will be postponed. If you do have some cycles

Re: SPDX-License-Identifier for composite-licensed source files

> On Dec 12, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Kate Stewart > wrote: > > Hi Richard, > I suspect the others will comment as well, but > I would hope to see > "SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0" > as a summary. Agree. And also agree with Richard’s comment about avoiding legal

meeting tomorrow POSTPONED to next week, Dec 19th / release update

Hi all, Due to some unforeseen circumstances, both Steve and I are not available tomorrow. Given this would be our last meeting for 2019 (unless people wanted to meet on Dec 26th?), I'd like to postpone to next week, Dec 19th. Please adjust your calendars accordingly. Also, we have not had

Re: matching guidelines updates

d, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:14 PM J Lovejoy <mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>> wrote: > > 1) what do we do with the webpage/URL and various places that link to such? > redirect to the appendix in the spec? but then what happens when the spec > updates? (It’s really import

Re: How to best handle modification notices and notices of origin in SPDX

better late, than never... > On Aug 22, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Matija ?uklje wrote: > > On Sunday 28 July 2019 22:16:34 CEST > garysourceaudi...@gmail.com wrote: >> [G.O.] First a disclaimer - I have not implemented this specific >> use case in an SPDX document, but here is one approach: For the >>

license inclusion guidelines

Hi all, A few months ago we began a project to update the license inclusion principles (as well as some other documentation updates in terms of both substance and location). Specifically, currently the license inclusion guidelines are posted here:

No meeting this week

Hi all, As Steve and I are at Open Source Summit (as are others), we’ll skip this week’s meeting. Please check and comment on open Github issues! Jilayne Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity and typographical errors. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this

Re: Meeting this Thursday, August 8

Hi Steve, I thought we were going to maybe have a demo by the GSoC student who is working on the license submission tool improvements. Is that not going to happen for this call? Thanks, Jilayne On 8/5/19 12:15 PM, Steve Winslow wrote: Hello all, The minutes from the latest Legal Team

meeting minutes

Hi all, Please find the meeting minutes here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-07-11 We had a very fruitful discussion about the SPDX-FileCopyrightText proposal, which is mostly documented here: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/122 and now also summary of last

Re: Project: Registry and repository of License List Namespaces

Hi Tanjong, Thanks for sending this to the SPDX legal team and sorry for the delayed response. This looks good, but I have one main concern: how will people know when to submit a license to the namespace repository versus submitting a license for inclusion in the SPDX License List? Also, who

Re: ISC license definition

Hi Yegor, We have Matching Guidelines to explain when a license may be a match or not, see: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines ISC License has markup to accommodate different names in the disclaimer, which you can

Re: SPDX legal team leadership

uch less of you as you start your > new adventure. > Mike > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:16 AM J Lovejoy <mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>> wrote: > Hello SPDX legal team members, > > I wanted to inform you of some updates to the SPDX legal team membership. &g

SPDX legal team leadership

Hello SPDX legal team members, I wanted to inform you of some updates to the SPDX legal team membership. For some years now, Paul Madick, Karen Copenhaver and I have shared the SPDX legal team leadership responsibilities and formed part of the SPDX core team. Karen has been a huge supporter

meeting minutes from today

cut and pasting them here, instead of sending a link - maybe that will stir some energy around the last statement in particular… ;) Attendees[edit ] John Horan Jilayne Lovejoy Mark Atwood Gary O’Neall Steve Winslow Jim

meeting today at top of the hour

sorry, thought I had sent this last night! agenda: 1) GSoC update 2) 3.6 release (aka lots o’ licenses that still need to be reviewed… Jilayne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2597): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2597

documentation - license list overview

Hi all, We’ve been working on some updates and improvements to some of the SPDX License List documentation over the last couple meetings. Below is a bit of a summary of some of the updates and an ask for review/feedback. We have been in the process of updating and moving some of the info on

Solderpad licenses on SPDX License List

Andrew! I wanted to get your Solderpad licenses on the last SPDX License List release, but didn’t make it as I had a couple remaining questions and you didn’t respond when I tagged you on Github :) We are close to trying to get together the next release, so it would be good to get this tied

meeting minutes posted (and help needed)

from today’s call here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-05-16 please note: we have MANY new license requests. We need review by the whole team (not just one or two of us…) to get decisions on these and then start

regular legal call in an hour

Agenda: review new license requests - there are a lot of them. Please have a look, if possible, in the Github issues list. Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586 No PIN needed Jilayne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages

meeting tomorrow (thursday)

Hi all, We will have our regularly scheduled call. (see dial in info here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team ) I’d like to make a point to spend a bit of time discussing the topic below. Otherwise, we will also try to tackle any new issues or issues

meeting today

Hi all, Just a reminder that we have our bi-weekly call today at 10am MDT. I think Europe has now also set their clocks forward so we should all be back to our normal time differences. Being that we just got the 3.5 release out, I’d like to discuss a few broader things today: 1) We have

SPDX License List version 3.5 now live

Hi all, Version 3.5 of the SPDX License List is now released. Most notably, we have added several open hardware licenses (CERN and TAPR), which I think is a really sensible and exciting addition, considering we already have open documentation and data licenses on the list. We are still

Re: An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

just a quick note on this: the leftpad issue had some very specific and extenuating circumstances that led to the mess it created which are really not applicable here. So while the legal team will consider our scenario, leftpad is not instructive. > On Mar 13, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Philippe

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

Hi all, I’m admittedly a bit late to this party despite having a few thoughts on the topic. This thread has quite a few aspects to it, starting with Jeff’s initial proposal, so I’ll try to hit all of them, even though the whole thread is not below. First of all, I am noticing some energy

SPDX tools and license submission, etc

Hi all, Gary asked us to log issues for any improvements we might think of for the SPDX online tools - particularly related to the submit license and generate XML tools. I have just added some notes on how the XML generation can be improved here:

meeting minutes

I just posted meeting minutes for today’s call (still need to add those from last meeting). https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-03-21 Please note: for merging the final PRs, let’s try to have someone else review and merge. Feel free to tag each other when you are done and ready

meeting today (soon)!

Hi all, Meant to send this out last night, but as a last minute reminder, we have a meeting today at the top of the hour. Dial-in info: Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586 No PIN needed Main agenda item is getting the 3.5 release ready to

Re: GPL-CC and Kernel enforcement statement

Hi Philippe, I’m not going to re-hash what was a very lengthy and (surprisingly to me) heated discussion on the Linux kernel enforcement statement, since that is all in the email list archives. But as to your examples of [3], [4], and [5] below - they are all adopting the GPL Cooperation

GPL Cooperation Commitment

Hi all, Towards the end of 2018, Richard Fontana submitted the GPL Cooperation Commitment for review to be added to the SPDX License List. We had some discussion about how that might work, but due to some other issues that took up more time and it being close to the December release, it got

Re: [spdx] announcing: Open Source Compliance Handbook

and here is the link to that announcement that I forgot to include before: https://www.finos.org/blog/announcing-the-open-source-license-compliance-handbook ;) Jilayne > On Mar 12, 2019, at 12:18 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > Hi SPDX folks (legal and general list), > > I want to

announcing: Open Source Compliance Handbook

Hi SPDX folks (legal and general list), I want to tell you about a project I’ve been working on with Aaron Williamson and the Fintech Open Source Foundation (FINOS) that I think many of you may be interested in. FINOS has announced the initial release of the Open Source License Compliance

new license workflow documentation

Hi all, As discussed on a previous call, I’ve added a new doc describing the workflow for adding a new license. This aims to capture the steps for our team members who are shepherding a request through the process. The hope is by getting this written down - we’ll all do a better job (and not

call on Thursday, agenda

Hi All, Just a reminder that we have our bi-weekly call this Thursday at 17:00 GMT (9:00AM PT, 10:00 MT, 11:00 CT, 12:00PM ET). Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586 No PIN needed As we are getting close to the “deadline” for getting stuff

Legal call shortly

Sorry for last minute warning! Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity and typographical errors. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2550): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2550 Mute This Topic:

meeting today

in an hour - we’ll pick up where we left off from last call! https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team Also: please note - the Open Source Leadership Summit is coming up in Half Moon Bay, March 12-14 -

Re: Updated project ideas - new login workflow

that looks great! Jilayne > On Jan 18, 2019, at 10:30 AM, Gary O'Neall wrote: > > Greeting legal and tech team, > > Following up on last week’s legal call, Alan Tse and I discussed using some > of the license diff features as part of the license submittal process. This > resulted in a new

Re: New License/Exception Request:Convertible Free Software License v1.1

> On Jan 14, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > > Dear J. Lovejoy, > > On 11.01.19 23:31, J Lovejoy wrote: >> Hi Elmar, >> It appears that you are still in the OSI review/approval process and as a >> result the license has evolved a bit. We are track

Re: New License/Exception Request: Python Imaging Library License

Hi Mark, Philippe, I just had a closer look at this using Alan’s handy License Diff tool, which gave it a close match to MIT-CMU - the only difference between this license and MIT-CMU is: - “and its associated documentation” instead of just “and its documentation” in the first sentence

Re: New License/Exception Request:Convertible Free Software License v1.1

Hi Elmar, It appears that you are still in the OSI review/approval process and as a result the license has evolved a bit. We are tracking it for submission to SPDX here - https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/692 - but as the

meeting minutes have been posted

https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-01-10 Thanks for everyone for a good call and kick off for 2019. Please note action items at bottom and call for everyone to help with new license submissions :) Thanks, Jilayne

welcome to 2019!

Hi all, I hope everyone had some nice time off and enjoyed the holidays. You should have all gotten a recurring invite from Steve Winslow for the 2019 bi-weekly legal calls at 9am Pacific time. Our first call for 2019 will be this Thursday, the 10th. Dial-in info is in the usual place:

FSF Licensing and Compliance Lab: 2018 and the future

In case some of you are not on the FSF mailing list, SPDX had a nice mention here! :) Jilayne > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Donald Robertson, III, FSF" > Subject: FSF Licensing and Compliance Lab: 2018 and the future > Date: December 12, 2018 at 8:41:51 PM MST > To: Jilayne Lovejoy

v3.4 is now live! (and a couple other updates)

Hi all, version 3.4 of the SPDX License List is now live! https://spdx.org/licenses/ You can read release notes here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML I’m really pleased that we got this one done before Christmas

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion (and personal note)

fair enough. hence, stepping away from keyboard now! > On Dec 13, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Michael Cameron > wrote: > > I’m thinking of an app that senses tone and asks the sender “you sure about > sending to all those on the cc?” :-) > From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on beha

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion (and personal note)

Thanks Mike. I had started another email earlier this morning, but got distracted (ha ha…) by the actual meeting and tying up the 3.4 release, so just sent now. Let me make one thing very clear on a more personal note: 1) I am DONE commenting on this thread for the reasons stated in the email

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

I think this is getting closer to the crux, but I also think some terminology and associations of such is getting in the way: there seems to be focus on whether or not the KES is an “exception” or an “additional permission” to the GPL-2.0-only (that is, the license of the kernel) and then that

meeting minutes and update for 3.4 release

Hi all, Today’s meeting minutes have been posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-12-12 We have resolved most of the 3.4 issues and PRs that we could. I’ve also gone through and tagged things as appropriate

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

> On Dec 11, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Sandler wrote: > > On 2018-12-11 12:19, J Lovejoy wrote: > >> Am I missing something here on the urgency aspect or did I sort of >> create the urgency by tagging it for the 3.4 release? > > I proposed this because there

call tomorrow / 3.4 release work to be done

Hi all, We are not in what should be the final days of prep for the next release. Looking over the list of issues tagged for 3.4, I’m not sure we’ll realistically get them all over the line, but we will focus on the remaining issues and what we can close out in the next week to prepare for

use of SPDX identifiers by Western Digital

Just spotted another project using SPDX identifiers in source file: Western Digital appears to be using them in their newly-released Open Source RISC-V SweRV Instruction Set Simulator https://github.com/westerndigitalcorporation/swerv-ISS/blob/master/Core.cpp

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

> On Dec 10, 2018, at 8:16 PM, Michael Dolan wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 7:47 PM James Bottomley > > wrote: > > So I think, realistically, the kernel wouldn't ever use this. Now that > means don't do it, but I think it's legitimate to

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

> On Dec 10, 2018, at 5:47 PM, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 15:58 -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > [...] >> C) The issue comes down to how the short identifier would be >> effectively used due to the KES's slightly different implementation &

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

of intention and explanation are just that -- not part > of the exception itself. > > The usage sould simply be something like "GPL-2.0-only WITh KES-Exception". > > Concerns about anyone using it incorrectly are also irrelevant to putting the > exception on the SPDX list.

Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

Hi all, I was hoping that others long-standing members of the SPDX legal community would jump in on this thread, but a few days have gone by now and no further discussion, so let me summarize some pertinent background, where I think we are, and any remaining questions or issues that need to be

GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

Hi all, I know I just wrote in the minutes that this task was on Richard F, but I was too curious not to have a cursory look myself! Attached is a compare of the project to corporate variant; and of the individual to project variant. The main difference seem to be: - in the use of pronouns

meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

/714 <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/714> or the relevant PR, when created. thanks, Jilayne > On Nov 28, 2018, at 10:59 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > just realized this only went to Richard. See corrected meeting time/zones > below! > >> Begin fo

meeting tomorrow/Thursday

just realized this only went to Richard. See corrected meeting time/zones below! > Begin forwarded message: > > From: J Lovejoy > Subject: Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday > Date: November 28, 2018 at 9:55:47 PM MST > To: Richard Fontana > > here’s the source of trut

meeting tomorrow/Thursday

Hi all, We’ll be back on our regularly scheduled call tomorrow/Thursday at 9am Pacific time / 11am Eastern time / 5pm Central European time. Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586 No PIN needed We scheduled for this

Re: proposed changes to CONTRIBUTING.md

I also updated the landing page on the wiki re: “where we work” - see https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team <https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team> (there was no mention of Github repo before) > On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:57 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > Hi all, > > In light of

proposed changes to CONTRIBUTING.md

Hi all, In light of our discussion today about updates to the CONTRIBUTING file and the process for submitting a new license, I have made proposed changes to the CONTRIBUTING file in a PR here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/722

meeting minutes posted

see: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-11-01 Please note: we will NOT have a meeting on Nov 15th!! We will reconvene on Nov 29th. Thanks, Jilayne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this

Re: meeting tomorrow and other updates

to all that, but wanted to at least put out some things for thought and to get on your radar, even if not discussed at this meeting - we can always discuss on the mailing list too, of course. Jilayne > On Oct 31, 2018, at 5:05 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > Hi all, > > We have our call tomo

meeting tomorrow and other updates

Hi all, We have our call tomorrow at 10am Mountain Time - REMINDER!! I believe Europe has already ended daylight savings/put their clocks back, while here in the US we do that this coming weekend. This should mean the the meeting is an hour earlier for our friends on the other side of the

Re: New License/Exception Request: The Star And Thank Author License

That is a really good point, Matija. Qiwihui - can you respond? Are you the author of this license? thanks, Jilayne > On Oct 25, 2018, at 4:54 AM, Matija ?uklje wrote: > > On petek, 19. oktober 2018 08:08:09 CEST qiwihui wrote: >> The basic idea is, whenever using a project using SATA

Re: Introducing myself

aining issue has to do with other language translations? (a larger issue that impacts more than just CC licenses, to be fair) Jilayne > On Oct 27, 2018, at 11:29 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > J Lovejoy wrote: >> we already include all the CC licenses > > While I'd love

Re: Introducing myself

I’ve just added an issue to consider adding the OHSW (as well as an open data) reference to our license inclusion guideline here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/719 We have a fair amount of topics to cover at the next

meeting minutes Oct 18

HI all, The meeting minutes from our last call here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-10-18 A couple things to call out: Tech team - we’d really like your thoughts on the idea of trying to better capture license

meeting today, at top of the hour

Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we have our bi-weekly call today at 10am MDT (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=75=394 ) We will focus on a couple hanging items to wrap up the 3.3 release, and then

Re: [spdx] OGL licenses

r-information/psi-directive-transposition/> > > For Twitter content and updates on Re-use follow @KIMexperts > > <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/first-world-war/> > > From: J Lovejoy mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>> > Sent: 12 October 2018 18:30 > To: Davi

license for schema related files

Hi all, We discussed this on the Sept 20th call and recorded notes in the issue here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/683 but I wanted to post on the mailing list to make sure everyone saw and has a chance to comment. The

3.3 release update, meeting minutes

Hi all, We are a bit late on the 3.3 release and need some help getting it over the line. We did a good job of prioritizing what to finish up (preferably this week) for 3.3 and labeling anything we didn’t get to for 3.4 on the last call. Meeting minutes posted here:

Re: Removing the Appendix from the canonical Apache 2.0 license

Hi Hen, Thanks for letting us know. As per SPDX License List Matching Guideline 1.2, “extraneous” text that is not part of the substantive license text can be ignored for purposes of matching. See https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines

meeting Thursday, various updates

Hi All, We have our next call tomorrow at the usual time and place: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team We are a bit late on getting version 3.3 of the SPDX License List out, so we’ll focus on identifying what needs to be done for that (and close it

Re: License acknowledgement

Hello Matt, SPDX does not approve or certify licenses as “OSS compliant”. You might be thinking of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) which maintains the Open Source Definition and reviews licenses that are submitted to them based on that criteria. To see more, go to:

Re: New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

Richard, As the author of the license, do you have any input/preference as to the full name and identifier? (we usually try to ask the author, if the license is not submitted by the author) Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com On Sep 20, 2018, at 3:39 PM, Richard

last minute reminder - call in 10'!

dial-in info here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2374):

reminder of call today (in half hour)

We’ll pick up with going through “old” issues, cleaning out. Sorry for late notice! Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2371): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2371

Re: Sendmail has Updated its license

Hi all, I did a merge and compare and looks like most of the changes should be accommodated via markup (for different names) – see green highlighting in attached. There is one extra bit (in yellow highlighting attached) that we need to consider if this makes it a “different license” –

meeting minutes, etc.

Hi all, Meeting minutes have now been posted for the last couple meetings: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-07-12 and https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-07-26

meeting today

at the usual time! We’ll try to focus on some of the really old issues or tasks that have been hanging around, and then look at any new issues. Update on the XML editor (GSoC project) if anyone has had a chance to review, as well. @ 17:00 GMT (9:00AM PT, 10:00 MT, 11:00 CT, 12:00PM ET).

Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

tps://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview> Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Jul 5, 2018, at 11:41 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 06:16:56PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: >> Back to the Short Identifier additions a

reminder, update

HI all, We have the monthly SPDX General call in about 15’ - this is of special interest to the legal team, as the GSOC student working on the XML translator is presenting! Our bi-weekly legal call follows after that. version 3.2 of the SPDX License List is now out!! So, we’ll try to keep

General call next week: XML editor presented

tps://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting> Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:02 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > Hi all, > > Meeting minutes from last week are posted here: > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-28

meeting minutes, etc

Hi all, Meeting minutes from last week are posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-28 As per the discussion on updating URLs to licenses that was going on in a couple places, we came up with a final addition

Re: SPDX: Shouldn't "only" be replaced with "

HI David, Thanks for your email. We endeavor to keep identifiers consistent and only change them under very compelling circumstances. The somewhat recent change to using “or-later” as part of the identifiers for the GNU family of licenses was done with heavy input and at the request of the

meeting in 20 minutes

Hi all, We have our regular call shortly - we’ll focus on tying up any loose ends for the next SPDX License List release and any other outstanding issues that need discussion and closing out to that end. thanks, Jilayne Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional dial in

explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

Hi all, As discussed on the call today (related to Issue https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/651 ), we will add an explicit statement regarding not duplicating identifiers in the explanation of fields on the Overview page for the

Re: reminder of today's call at 9am PDT

meeting minutes posted: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-14 <https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-14> Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Jun 14, 2018, at 8:16 AM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > We’ll pick up where we left o

Re: New Exception Request: Qt-GPL-exception-1.0

Thanks both - this and the changes/deprecation of the existing exception will be in the soon-to-be-released v3.2 of the SPDX License List Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:47 PM, Kai Koehne wrote: > > >From: W. Trevor King

reminder of today's call at 9am PDT

We’ll pick up where we left off last meeting! Cheers, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2315): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2315 Mute This Topic:

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >