"Steve Winslow" writes:
> I expect we'd want to be a bit specific about what we mean by "is
> included in the distro". For instance, for Debian I'd think `main` would
> be covered, `non-free` would not, and I don't know for `contrib`.
Debian Developer here.
The contrib archive area has the
Thanks Richard, that’s helpful to point out! That and Steve’s point re: Debian
Main makes me think we’d need to be somewhat specific for each distro that
would trigger a lighter-weight review. More to ponder….
And Steve - agreed re: Change Proposal, I’ll add that to my list of things to
do
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:17 PM Steve Winslow wrote:
>
> Jilayne -- yes, I'd be open to a lighter-weight or streamlined approach to
> approving licenses submitted from use in distros such as Debian and Fedora.
>
> In these cases we have greater confidence that those communities have done
> the
All makes sense to me. Good idea.
From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Steve
Winslow
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 2:14 PM
To: Karsten Klein
Cc: J Lovejoy , SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines
Jilayne -- yes, I'd be open to a lighter-weight
Jilayne -- yes, I'd be open to a lighter-weight or streamlined approach to
approving licenses submitted from use in distros such as Debian and Fedora.
In these cases we have greater confidence that those communities have done
the work to vet certain of the license inclusion principles. In
Hi Jilayne,
once in a while I come back with my yet informal proposal to treat new licenses
in two stages:
Stage 1 - Registration
Register a license text providing a unique name and short id. (New)
Registration guidelines only make sure no other SPDX license is duplicated /
affected.
This
