Invitation: SPDX Legal Team bi-weekly call @ Every 2 weeks from 1pm to 2pm on Thursday from Thu Oct 24 to Wed Dec 25 (mdo...@linuxfoundation.org)

BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/Denver X-LIC-LOCATION:America/Denver BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0600 TZNAME:MDT DTSTART:19700308T02

Invitation: SPDX Legal Team Meeting @ Every 2 weeks from 1pm to 2pm on Thursday from Thu Mar 6 to Thu Dec 25 (mdo...@linuxfoundation.org)

...@hp.com ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP= TRUE;CN=opensou...@jilayne.com;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;RSVP=TRUE ;CN=Michael Dolan;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:mdo

Re: meeting minutes, meeting reminder

Hi Jilayne, thanks for sharing the minutes. I'd also thank Alexios in particular for pointing us to the correct COPYING file URL. He was correct and the website link for kernel.org we had sent was not correct. This Note is the one that also includes the reference to GPL-2.0. The correct URL is:

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > When I tested the application, I used the text from the SPDX license list > pages themselves which match. > That makes sense then. I also tried a copy/paste from the OSI pages and those didn't work either.

New License/Exception Request: CDLA-Sharing-1.0

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. Community Data License Agreement - Sharing - Version 1.0 Provide a proposed Short Identifier. CDLA-Sharing-1.0 Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either from the author or a community recognized

New License/Exception Request: CDLA-Permissive-1.0

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. Community Data License Agreement - Permissive - Version 1.0 Provide a proposed Short Identifier. CDLA-Permissive-1.0 Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either from the author or a community recognized

Re: Introducing myself

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:46 PM J Lovejoy wrote: > Of course, we’d need to make sure we have the various open source hardware > licenses on the SPDX License List first - we already include all the CC > licenses and some open data licenses, so I don’t see any reason not to > include open

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: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > Thus, we all need KES-Exception to write correct SPDX data for Linux. > Where would you insert this to create correct SPDX data for Linux"? What is the current "SPDX data for Linux" that is incorrect? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 7:47 PM James Bottomley < james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> 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 wonder how many other > projects would have similar problems. > Which

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

To be frank, I haven't had time to read all the list traffic today but I see there are lengthy discussions. Given Jilayne's backlog for this release it's clear this won't reach any usual consensus anytime soon so I would suggest we all give her some room to get what needs done for the next

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

I'm just catching up late on a Friday night and noticed this. I have to say I'm surprised this suddenly went to last call for comments. I guess I missed the prior discussion on the list about this and apologize for showing up late. I honestly do not understand the rationale for doing this. When

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

is it this will be misapplied? Should we enable this at all? On Sat, Dec 1, 2018, 3:09 PM James Bottomley < james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote: > On Sat, 2018-12-01 at 14:36 -0500, Michael Dolan wrote: > > James thanks for that explanation it helps me understand the angl

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

ote: > On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 19:20 -0500, Michael Dolan wrote: > > I'm just catching up late on a Friday night and noticed this. I have > > to say I'm surprised this suddenly went to last call for comments. I > > guess I missed the prior discussion on the list about this and >

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment

Looks good to me. --- 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, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM J Lovejoy wrote: > Hi all, > > Towards the end of 2018, Richard Fontana submitted

Re: Question about BSD-Source-Code

Hi Rob, not sure if this helps, but I found the minutes from one of the discussions here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2016-03-03 --- Mike Dolan On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 3:22 PM wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am new to this list, so first let me briefly introduce myself. I am >

Re: meeting minutes from today

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM J Lovejoy wrote: > > 3) Need more feedback on documentation updates - see email sent earlier > this week, comment on PRs in Github > >- discussed licenses that aren't squarely open source and variations >on how far fall out and how to deal with this

Re: SPDX legal team leadership

Jilayne, congratulations on your new role! We all owe YOU a massive thank you for the countless (and mostly thankless) hours of contribution and leadership to this effort. Hopefully we won't see too much less of you as you start your new adventure. Mike On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:16 AM J Lovejoy

Re: matching guidelines updates

My personal responses in-line below. I've not discussed this with Steve or anyone... (and I will openly admit I'm not as familiar with these parts are you all are). On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:14 PM J Lovejoy wrote: > > 1) what do we do with the webpage/URL and various places that link to >

Re: Use of exception to communicate legal ambiguity

Hi Richard, one initial thought that comes to mind is there are many projects with a single LICENSE file in the main repository directory. That's despite many of the files in the repository potentially being uncopyrightable for the reasons you describe. Would it even be desirable to have

Re: public domain dedications proliferation

In addition to Steve's thoughts... I will respond quickly as that was the request ... and likely miss issues. My only additional though is could we add a generic public domain license reference to the license list and then keep a list of discovered uses in the metadata

Re: OGC-1.0

This page notes the OGC Software License 1.0 "became active on June 14, 2001 (deprecated)." https://www.ogc.org/about-ogc/policies/software-licenses/ Till, I think you can propose fixes to the XML version here. The git history will capture the historical URLs if anyone wants to go back to a prior