Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 19:09 -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Michael Dolan wrote earlier today: > >Where would you insert this to create correct SPDX data for > > Linux"? What is the current "SPDX data for Linux" that is > > incorrect? > > How do you describe the license of someone's

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 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 was a strong consensus to add the

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

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

Apologies for my late and perhaps ill informed entry here, but just so I understand what is being proposed, is the idea to create a new SPDX identifier for the kernel license plus KES notwithstanding that such a thing would never actually be applied to any part of the kernel source in tree

Re: use of SPDX identifiers by Western Digital

Nicely done Alan! --- Mike Dolan VP of Strategic Programs The Linux Foundation Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan mdo...@linuxfoundation.org --- On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM Alan Tse wrote: > Thanks for the kind words guys. I figured it’s the least I

Re: use of SPDX identifiers by Western Digital

+1! Alan, you're setting a high bar for the rest of us hardware vendors. Dave From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of J Lovejoy Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:00 PM To: SPDX-legal Subject: use of SPDX identifiers by Western Digital Just spotted another project using SPDX

Re: use of SPDX identifiers by Western Digital

Thanks for the kind words guys. I figured it's the least I could do policy-wise since I've been delinquent in participating through the list. But to be truthful, we've been seeing more projects adopt SPDX (e.g., Linux) so we thought we were following community norms. ;) Alan D. Tse Associate

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: call tomorrow / 3.4 release work to be done

Hi Jilayne, thank you for all your efforts in keeping us moving towards the release! Here are my quick comments on a few of these, and I'll reflect this in the GitHub issues as applicable: 1. #729 - additional optional text in MIT - I actually already merged this, but wanted to draw attention to

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

I guess I will further say that if the SPDX group would like to informally condition adoption of GPLCC-1.0 (or whatever) as an exception identifier on some assurance that Red Hat will actually use it in one of the ways contemplated by SPDX (on the thinking that SPDX identifiers are not worth

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

On 2018-12-12 18:49, J Lovejoy wrote: I don’t think I need to keep apologizing for that. It is what it is and this is not the only thing that’s on the agenda for the SPDX License List. I don't think you need to apologize at all! My point was to answer your question about timing to give