Re: New License/Exception Request: The 0810 Software simple and permissive open source license (rev. 1.0)

Hello Marnix, thank you for your email. You can submit this as a license for consideration in the SPDX license list repo, at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues, for the community to review and evaluate. However, I'd encourage you to take a close look first at the license inclusion gui

Re: New License/Exception Request: selinux-nsa-declaration

Thanks Mark, I've created an issue to track this new request at: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/966 Steve On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:42 PM Mark Atwood via Lists.Spdx.Org wrote: > 1.Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. > selinux-nsa-declaration-1.0 > 2.

Re: New License/Exception Request: CAL-1.0 and CAL-1.0-with-exception

Hi Van, thanks for submitting this. I've copied it over to an issue in the SPDX license-list-XML repo, so that comments and input can be aggregated there -- see https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/953 Best, Steve On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 1:30 AM Lindberg, Van wrote: > Hello, > > > > I

Re: New License/Exception Request: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Of course. For those following along, I am @kemitchell on github.com. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2557): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2557 Mute This Topic

Re: New License/Exception Request: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Hi Kyle, Could I please ask you to submit this via our (somewhat) new and improved system as described here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md :) Thanks, Jilayne > On Mar 7, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote: > > Full Name: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Re: New License/Exception Request: Link To My SoundCloud Public License

Hi, Bill, I am not a lawyer, but this license has two drawbacks: 1) It’s pure existence aids license proliferation, which is a bad thing by itself. 2) Gluing the Soundcloud link to the software “forever” is a bad thing (especially as it is for any URL which is not really forever under your co

Re: New License/Exception Request: PNG Reference Library License 2

Hi Kai, I think you are onto the right path in terms of adding the first license and updating our existing Libpng. As to the latter, that would have to be done via matching markup such that the existing one and the new one make a match when considering text that is not substantively part of the

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 (Permiss

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

Hi Mark: On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:42 PM Mark Atwood via Lists.Spdx.Org wrote: > Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. > Python Imaging Library License It looks to me as a proper historical permission (HPND https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html ) This has been detected by the

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

Hi Mark, I believe that the proposed PILL addition to the SPDX license list will be a lot easier to swallow (!!!) if you put a Version Number on it. Regards, Dennis Clark On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:42 AM Mark Atwood via Lists.Spdx.Org wrote: > Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or e

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 licens

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

On petek, 19. oktober 2018 08:08:09 CEST qiwihui wrote: > Short Identifier: SATA In any case, should we decide to adopt this license, I would suggest we use a different short ID, as it could cause confusion with the widely known SATA/Serial ATA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA cheers,

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

On petek, 19. oktober 2018 08:08:09 CEST qiwihui wrote: > The basic idea is, whenever using a project using SATA license, > people shall star/like/+1 that project and thank the author. …this brings up so many questions in me. Would I really not be allowed to use the software, if I don’t +1 it? W

Re: New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

I would suggest the following: Full name: copyleft-next 0.3.1 Identifier: copyleft-next-0.3.1 - Richard - Original Message - From: "J Lovejoy" To: "SPDX-legal" Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 12:04:17 AM Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: cop

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 Fo

Re: New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 10:08:13AM -0500, Kuno Woudt wrote: > > 5. Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved (see: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) or whether it has been > submitted for approval to the OSI and is currently under review. > > The license is not formally OSI

Re: New License/Exception Request: Exception - Font-Embedding

Hi all, Not having heard a response re: versioning, we discussed on the SPDX legal call today and agreed to version by date. This will be included in the 3.2 release of the SPDX License List, slated for the end of June.

Re: New License/Exception Request: Exception - Font-Embedding

Hi Stefan, Apologies for the multiple messages, but I meant to ask whether you personally were the author of the exception text, or whether you knew who the author was or how to get in touch with them. The purpose of this contact would be to ask whether the author of the exception text could inst

Re: New License/Exception Request: Exception - Font-Embedding

Hi Stefan, Thank you for this license request. It has been approved here and will be added to the next release of the SPDX License List. Best, Brad -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:

RE: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

day, April 5, 2018 8:52 AM To: Dennis Clark Cc: Atwood, Mark ; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution Mark, Do I understand correctly then, that Amazon created this license? While I understand the rationale (as you explained below), which makes sens

Re: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

Mark, Do I understand correctly then, that Amazon created this license? While I understand the rationale (as you explained below), which makes sense and I can see others having a similar goal. But, I’m wondering why Amazon made a new license, instead of using something that reaches the same g

RE: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

t: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:58 AM To: Atwood, Mark Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution Hi Mark, There is currently a request for this new license at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 I don't think we have

Re: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

Hi Mark, There is currently a request for this new license at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 I don't think we have a target date for completion of the request just yet. Regards, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Atwood, Mark via Spdx-legal < spdx-leg

Re: New License/Exception Request: Qt-LGPL-exception-1.1

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:39:54PM +, Kai Koehne wrote: > Short-name: Qt-exception-LGPL-1.1 I've filed a pull request implementing this [1], although I went with the short ID from your subject instead of the one I'm quoting here (more on why in the PR). Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://github.com

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > Thanks for your response. > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Philippe Ombredanne > wrote: >> The way this is typically worded in OpenSSL and CRYPTOGRAMS would calls >> for this expression IMHO: >> OpenSSL OR (BSD-3-Cl

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

Hi Philippe, Thanks for your response. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > The way this is typically worded in OpenSSL and CRYPTOGRAMS would calls > for this expression IMHO: > OpenSSL OR (BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0) That sounds fine to me. I'm further wondering - am I al

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

Jason: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hey SPDX, > > A lot of older OpenSSL code is under the OpenSSL license, but the > author also provides it under GPLv2. Great. The SPDX identifier for > this is obvious. > > Faced with the multitude of requests for adding this GPLv

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > I'm curious, are you seeing this a lot in FreeBSD? I guess one could run a whole scancode-toolkit scan on FreeBSD and based on the return score this would catch all the likely many other BSD variants if these are not matched with a very hig

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

Hello Jilayne; On 02/12/2017 09:11, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: Thanks for your request, Pedro. I thought this looked familiar to a variant we have on the SPDX License List - https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-Source-Code.html - but the one you have found is indeed just the one clause! IANAL (of co

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

Thanks for your request, Pedro.  I thought this looked familiar to a variant we have on the SPDX License List - https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-Source-Code.html - but the one you have found is indeed just the one clause!  I'm curious, are you seeing this a lot in FreeBSD?  I would as

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

On 30/11/2017 15:26, James C. Roberts III wrote: You might have read this article about OSS license changes that will also be retroactive, but it might be of interest.  I apologize if it is off-point. It is off-point. ___ Spdx-legal mailing list

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

Pedro, Legal Team, Request for BSD-1-Clause added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions Under Consideration google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_ VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 Regards, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:23 AM,

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

You might have read this article about OSS license changes that will also be retroactive, but it might be of interest. I apologize if it is off-point. https://www.technewsworld.com/story/84980.html James JAMES C. ROBERTS III GLOBAL CAPITAL LAW G

Re: New License/Exception Request: CDLA-Permissive-1.0

Mike, Legal Team, Request for CDLA-Permissive-1.0 added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions Under Consideration google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 Regards, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:5

Re: New License/Exception Request: CDLA-Sharing-1.0

Mike, Legal Team, Request for CDLA-sharing-1.0 added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions Under Consideration google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 Regards, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:49

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Actually, after re-thinking this, I am of the opinion that the EPLv2 Exhibit A is worded correctly as is. The statement in question is: “This Source Code is also Distributed under one or more Secondary Licenses, as those terms are defined by the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0: {name l

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

context. From: on behalf of Richard Fontana Date: Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:10 PM To: Wayne Beaton Cc: Kate Stewart , SPDX-legal Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 I think you're right about the intent. The annoying thing here is the ceremonial wording of Exhibit A

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Can confirm Richard's recollection of MPL's history around this clause. On Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 7:18 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:10:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > > However, 2(e) makes me wonder: > > > e) Notwithstanding the terms of any Secondary License, no Cont

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:10:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > However, 2(e) makes me wonder: > > e) Notwithstanding the terms of any Secondary License, no Contributor makes > > additional grants to any Recipient (other than those set forth in this > > Agreement) as a result of such Recipien

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Regarding EPL-2.0 at ... Richard Fontana: > I think you're right about the intent. The  annoying thing here is the > ceremonial wording of Exhibit A says nothing about compatibility as such and > instead seems to merely express the traditional concept of a

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

t I am kicking myself for not noticing this before. :) Richard - Original Message - From: "Wayne Beaton" To: "Richard Fontana" Cc: "David A Wheeler" , "Kate Stewart" , "SPDX-legal" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 2:43:12 PM S

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM To: Richard Fontana Cc: Kate Stewart , SPDX-legal Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 I actually did mean WITH, but may have been clumsy with my selection of terms. Using OR is basically saying that the content is dual-licensed which is not the

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

t correctly or need a second cup of coffee but I'm > not really seeing how the above SPDX expression would be different from > > (EPL-2.0 OR (GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0)) though. > > > Richard > > > > > ------ > > From: "Dav

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

"SPDX-legal" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:02:51 PM Subject: RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 Kate Stewart: Possibly you're using WITH (which is restricted to only refer to exceptions when you mean to use AND?? Does the following look like what you're trying

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote: > The EPL-2.0 has been approved by the OSI and the Eclipse Board of Directors. [...] > The wrinkle, I think, is that there is a provision in the license for > "secondary license" support. A project team may opt to declare that their > project co

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Kate Stewart: > Possibly you're using WITH (which is restricted to only refer to exceptions > when you mean to use AND?? > Does the following look like what you're trying to represent? > EPL-2.0 > EPL-2.0 AND GPL-2.0 > EPL-2.0 AND (GPL-2.0 with Classpath-exception-2.0) Those are *syntactically* f

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

on. > > > > Gary > > > > *From:* spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@ > lists.spdx.org] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Beaton > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 7:17 PM > *To:* Richard Fontana > *Cc:* spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org > *Subject:* Re

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

of licenses and exceptions is common. Gary From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 7:17 PM To: Richard Fontana Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

I thought about doing something like what's done with MPL-2.0, but my understanding is that the exceptions to GPL are important. Maybe I'm just thinking about it too hard. e.g. I believe that all of these are valid permutations... EPL-2.0 EPL-2.0 with GPL-2.0 EPL-2.0 with (GPL-2.0 with Classpath-

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Regarding the secondary license support, should it follow what's done with MPL 2.0 (SPDX has separate license identifiers for MPL-2.0 and "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception"), thus something like "EPL-2.0" and "EPL-2.0-copyleft-exception"? I don't like the "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception" myself as

RE: New License/Exception Request: ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception

> From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us] > There's some previous discussion in [1,2]. The current recommendation is to > define a custom ID for the patent rider and use that [3], for > example: > > BSD-3-Clause AND FB-Patents-2.0 I'm happy with that instead.. I just want a standard way

Re: New License/Exception Request: ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 06:22:37PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > As far as I can tell SPDX currently has no way to report this > information. There's some previous discussion in [1,2]. The current recommendation is to define a custom ID for the patent rider and use that [3], for example: BS

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Thank you for your help, Sam et al., and for taking the time to respond. The information and insight you have provided is very valuable to me and I'm sure will prove useful in shaping the way crypto licenses are approached. I will take more time to digest this and hope you were able to enjoy the ar

RE: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Hi Josh, > Wanted to quickly share with you all that, with your encouragement, I've > continued > pursuing BTC License in hopes of garnering enough adoption to eventually make > it > a viable SPDX License List contender. Thank you for the link to the blog. Whilst gaining adoption certainly help

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Wanted to quickly share with you all that, with your encouragement, I've continued pursuing BTC License in hopes of garnering enough adoption to eventually make it a viable SPDX License List contender. On a related note. Here is a piece you may enjoy, written by Phil Odence following a conversatio

Re: New License/Exception Request: EUPL-1.2

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:22:47PM +, Steenbergen, Thomas wrote: > I would like to request a new > license to > be added to the SPDX license list. Please let me know if you need > any additional information. There's already a thread for t

Re: New License/Exception Request: EUPL-1.2

Thanks Sebastien - I knew this was in the works, but had not followed the latest status. We’ll make sure it’s included on the SPDX License List for the next release. Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > Also, EUPL 1

Re: New License/Exception Request: EUPL-1.2

Also, EUPL 1.2 has just been approved by the OSI (not yet reflected on the OSI website). On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:01:56AM +0200, Sébastien Règne wrote: > Hello, > > A new version of EUPL > > was released : > >-

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Thanks to all of your for your feedback. It's very helpful for me as I begin navigating these new waters. I will find this rooftop and I will sing. But I cannot do it alone. And so now I rally. If you can share my idea with others, I'm open to speaking with anyone I can about the concept and how it

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Hi Josh, I agree with Philippe here (SPDX looks to use "in the field" as a key factor in adding a license to the list), but I do in fact think your idea of inserting BTC or other crypto addresses in copyright and/or author statements is an interesting one. I hope you won't take this result as disc

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Thank you for this valuable information, Philippe. I will pursue your advice. Thank you all for your time. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas wrote: > > > For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX Licens

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas wrote: > For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX License List. > I am but I small Fish in a large pond. Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards. Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received adoptio

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Hi Jilayne, For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX License List. I am but I small Fish in a large pond. The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple permissive canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto wallet addresses as mentione

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Hi Josh, As this is the exact same license text as ISC, save for the copyright line which is not counted as for purposes of matching license texts as per the SPDX License List Matching Guidelines, there is no need to add this to the SPDX License List, as the license would be identified as or ma

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Hi Josh, I think the point here is that you can adopt your proposal of using using a BTC wallet address in the copyright-holder field without declaring a new license at all. Since the intent is to use the exact same terms as the ISC, why not just propose using wallet addresses in copyright or auth

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

FYI - BTC just hit Hacker Noon. https://hackernoon.com/introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11 On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:04 PM Josh Habdas wrote: > My remaining question to Richard as to how many words I should change to > make it a unique license, which it already is. > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Quoting Josh Habdas (2017-07-11 04:47:30) > Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is > this request being tracked for discussion? You got a response from Richard Fontana, and you confirmed that this is not a new license, only a new copyright holder. What is left to tra

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

My remaining question to Richard as to how many words I should change to make it a unique license, which it already is. On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Josh Habdas (2017-07-11 04:47:30) > > Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is > > t

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is this request being tracked for discussion? On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:04 AM Josh Habdas wrote: > I can change something insignificant if it helps, but this seemed better > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:03 AM Josh Habdas wrote: > >> It'

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

I can change something insignificant if it helps, but this seemed better On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:03 AM Josh Habdas wrote: > It's the exact same, in fact. Save for the copyright line. And here's why > this new license is important: > > > https://medium.com/@jhabdas/introducing-the-btc-license-286

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

It's the exact same, in fact. Save for the copyright line. And here's why this new license is important: https://medium.com/@jhabdas/introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11?source=linkShare-d4a43ea991d3-1499277791 On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:57 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > This seems to be equivale

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

This seems to be equivalent to the ISC license from an SPDX point of view (see https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines: " Ignore copyright notices. A copyright notice consists of the following elements, for example: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or "(c) 2012 Jo

Re: New License/Exception Request: Linux-Note

Could you please consider adding an exception to the set of recognized license exceptions for the text at the start of the Linux kernel COPYING file.    Two of the senior kernel maintainers,  Thomas Gleixer and Greg Kroah-Hartman brought the issue to our attention.  They are uncomfortable j

Re: New License/Exception Request

Wendy, This license will be added in the upcoming v2.6 release of the SPDX License List which should go live in the next few days. Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > As of 13 May 2015, W3C uses the Softwar

Re: SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

J Lovejoy wrote: > I will connect the license author with the FSF and we’ll go from there. Great! > Of course, FSF’s input should be included, but also we don’t want to > discourage any free software enthusiasts - especially, as is the case here, > when it is indicative of a government trying to

Re: SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

Thanks Bradley for raising this, as it was something I had started to wonder about given the feedback we got from Malcolm’s reading of the license. I will connect the license author with the FSF and we’ll go from there. Of course, FSF’s input should be included, but also we don’t want to discou

Re: SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

Richard Fontana wrote at 12:54 (PST) on Tuesday: > FWIW, as you may recall, bkuhn, I relied on the GPL FAQ meta-license during > the earliest days of what (thanks to your naming suggestion) became known > as copyleft-next, as initially the text was fairly close to that of GPLv3. I recall from the

Re: SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:54:44AM -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Richard Fontana wrote: > >It appears to be for the most part a translation of GPLv3 into Spanish. > Malcolm Bain confirmed: > >>As Richard says, this is 90% or more a direct translation of GPLv3. > > Is the translation aut

SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

Richard Fontana wrote: >It appears to be for the most part a translation of GPLv3 into Spanish. Malcolm Bain confirmed: >>As Richard says, this is 90% or more a direct translation of GPLv3. Is the translation authorized? Is it in compliance with the FSF's published meta-license of the GP

RE: New License/Exception Request

and Happy New Year” in the old days), malcolm _ De: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfont...@redhat.com] Enviado el: jueves, 22 de diciembre de 2016 22:56 Para: brad edmondson CC: J Lovejoy; David Nina M.; SPDX-legal; Malcolm Bain Asunto: Re: New License/Exception Request It appears to be for

Re: New License/Exception Request

It appears to be for the most part a translation of GPLv3 into Spanish. - Original Message - From: "Brad Edmondson" To: "J Lovejoy" Cc: "David Nina M." , "SPDX-legal" , "Malcolm Bain" Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 4:49

Re: New License/Exception Request

Thanks Jilayne, As we discussed on today's call, I reviewed a Google translation of the license web page. Based on quick overview, it seems to be pretty standard copyleft. I agree that we should plan on adding it to the SPDX list. Best, Brad -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond..

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hola, We would like to add this license to the SPDX License List. None of us reviewing the license are fluent Spanish speakers. Could you verify that this is an open source license according to the OSI definition? I’ve also copied Malcolm Bain here, as he may be able to help answer this questi

Re: New License/Exception Request

I won't be able to make today's call. But on the topic of "vanity licenses", I would like to add that the WTFPL, while flippant and contrarian, doesn't seem like a vanity license to me. There is a standard form, and developers from different communities use it. That despite the fact it's easier to

RE: New License/Exception Request

This would be a good topic today if Jilayne thinks we have time. Paul From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Clark Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:15 AM To: J Lovejoy Cc: SPDX-legal ; Sébastien Règne Subject: Re: New License

Re: New License/Exception Request

Legal Team, I strongly feel that this new license does not need to be added to the SPDX license list, and the very most it deserves would be a note on the existing related license already on the list. I think we might want to have a short conversation about vanity licenses, and whether we should

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi All, We have dealt with licenses that have different language translations before. Where the translations are considered official and equivalent, we don’t add a new SPDX license or identifier, as it is the same license. For example, see: https://spdx.org/licenses/LiLiQ-R-1.1.html

Re: New License/Exception Request

Sébastien, I wrote the npm code that gave the warning you received. I contributed that code unofficially, as a member of the npm community. I don't speak for SPDX or npm here. Just for myself. From a community point of view, it was very important to choose a metadata standard that recognized "dis

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi, 1. *LPRAB* and *WTFPL-2.0* have the same author (Sam Hocevar ). So if the English version is an open source license, the French counterpart must be as. 2. This license isn't popular, but it's used by some people : I found about fifty pr

Re: New License/Exception Request

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Sébastien Règne wrote: >> I propose to add the license Rien À Branler, that is the official French >> translation of WTFLP v2. >> Full Name : Licence Publique Rien À Branler >> Short Identifier : LPRAB >> Website : http://sam.zoy.org/lprab/ >> OSI-approved : No >

RE: New License/Exception Request

Hi, My initial question is, is this really a different license that requires different identification, or is it just a variant of the existing WTFPL and should be identified the same? This seems a grey area, since it may depend on the quality of the translation and how official the translation

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Jilayne, Apologies for that. I'm still fairly new to mailing lists, haha! I've joined it just now. Thanks, Marcus  On Sep 14 2016, at 2:57 pm, J Lovejoy

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Marcus, Sorry for the delay in this actually getting send to the legal team, but your email got caught up in the bounce filter and I didn’t get to it until now. Could I convince you to join the SPDX legal mailing list to avoid this going forward? http://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx

RE: New License/Exception Request rightsstatements.org

call. Best, Paul Madick SPDX Legal Team co-lead From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of James C. Roberts III Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:15 AM To: Maarten Zeinstra Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request

Re: New License/Exception Request rightsstatements.org

While I have all of you on this thread, I thought I’d jump in to ask if anyone is interested in a web-based speaking opportunity to California licensing and transactional lawyers. I’m the Chair of the State Bar’s Licensing Interest Group. We have monthly conference calls, built around a 15-20

Re: New License/Exception Request rightsstatements.org

Hi Dennis, Thanks for the reply and I agree it might not be the best fit for SPDX, although with some creative thinking it could fall into the scope of the project. Rightsstatements.org is not an identifier for open works, like open source or open content. It is a way to more specifically comm

Re: New License/Exception Request rightsstatements.org

Hi Maarten, Thanks very much for communicating the various http://rightsstatements.org/ resources, which provide some deep analysis of copyright and licensing issues. This is a lot for anyone to absorb quickly, and various members of the legal group have added these resources to their reading lis

RE: New License/Exception Request

Hi Reza, Thank you for your proposal for a generic SPDX license to denote proprietary licenses. The SPDX-Legal team has considered your request and reviewed the examples you provided from npm along with other examples we separately researched. After discussion, we have concluded that including

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

Philippe Ombredanne twisted the bytes to say: Philippe> 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, rat

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

Philippe Ombredanne twisted the bytes to say: Philippe> 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, rat

  1   2   >