RE: FW: Please add fields for FSF-approved, Debian-acceptable, and Fedora-good

Thanks for the support for this proposal. I’m also realizing that these really shouldn’t be Boolean. For example, Fedora’s license list identifies both “good” and “bad” licenses – so the field should allow both “good” and “bad”. I also suggest that the field be optional – Fedora doesn’t

Re: FW: Please add fields for FSF-approved, Debian-acceptable, and Fedora-good

I support David's request as well, and Gary's suggestion to reach out to the communities and get an expert from one of them to help fill out which of the lists associated with their projects (and keep an eye on it over tome.) On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Gary O'Neall

FW: Please add fields for FSF-approved, Debian-acceptable, and Fedora-good

Let me know if this is scheduled for one of the upcoming legal team meetings - I would like to participate in this discussion. I would like to support David's request, but I understand the challenges in maintaining the list. I'm wondering if we could get some community support once we have

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

Eric Weddington [mailto:eric_wedding...@trimble.com]: > Where SPDX is at now, is that it says one thing, but does another. > Yes, the website says that the SPDX License List is a list of "commonly found > open source licenses".  But if we're going to talk about restriction use then > it's too