Re: extra field for license exceptions

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:41:50AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > The license exceptions have an “extra” field that we don’t use for > the licenses, which is “Example of Use”. I think this is from info > we captured when collecting exceptions to add to the list. Potentially more useful information

Re: extra field for license exceptions

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 02:18:55PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Information related to who, when, how, why a license or exception > was requested to be added is maintained here: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 > for

Re: extra field for license exceptions

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 03:58:38PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > In the course of implementing the license expression syntax and > deciding to put license exceptions in their own sub-list, we thought > we might as well be thorough about it, and a few brave souls set > about to find as many license

Re: New License Request: FB-Patents-2.0

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:53:47AM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Based on feedback from W. Trevor King (thank you!!), here is round 2. Cross-linking round 1 [1]. > Here I propose this Facebook rider as a new *license* instead of > separate license *exception*… I had proposed the na

Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 12:23:43PM +, Phil Odence wrote: > The SPDX License List includes a list of Exceptions. These > Exceptions are commonly-granted permissions beyond those normally > granted in a license. (They are not stand-alone licenses.) > Exceptions are added to a license using the

Re: Your license: full name and identifier

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 01:27:23PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > I created a redirect so that now both > https://opensource.org/BSDplusPatent and > https://opensource.org/BSD-2-Clause-Patent both go to > https://opensource.org/node/865/ (or something functionally equivalent > to that). More

Re: SPDX full names of GPL family licenses

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:24:20PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Traditionally of course (I mean outside of SPDX) the full name of > that sort of license would have been something like "GNU Lesser > General Public License version 2.1 or any later version", i.e. the > "only" would of course only

Version the matching guidelines

The spec currently links to the matching guidelines by guideline number. For example, [1]: type: indicates whether the text is replaceable or omitable as per Matching Guideline #2 (“Substantive Text”). That seems brittle with the guidelines unversioned. For example, that reference will

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:53:05PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:44:45AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > > The only difference that turned up in the license text is: > > > > Copyright [-©-]{+(C)+} 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. &

Re: License checking tool available

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:12:54AM -0700, Gary wrote: > I feel we need another tool to compare text to a specific SPDX > license and indicate exactly where the 2 licenses do not match. Having this be part of the online tool would be great. But a quick-and-dirty way to accomplish this is to use

Re: joint call legal/tech team - Tuesday, Aug 8

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:54:34PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > There is a summary of the background and issue here: > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation I've spend some time today using my new wiki account to shuffle things around there and on [1]. If it's

Re: Your license: full name and identifier - BSD-2-Clause-Patent?

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:51:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > But in that case, I think there needs to be a *speedy* assignment > (hah!) of a SPDX license id/expression to the React.js license. There's some previous discussion of that license in [1,2]. Cheers, Trevor [1]:

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:

Re: minutes, summary, next steps

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 06:00:22PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > W. Trevor King: > > Is this proposal different from [1]? The only think I can see is that the > > old > > “GPL-2.0 by itself is unclear” issue is now being explicitly embraced > > (while [1] > &g

Re: minutes, summary, next steps

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Gary wrote: > > > > Will that be: > > > > > > > > a. GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only > > > > > > The "ONLY" would be an operator, so I'd expect to see: (GPL-2.0 > > > ONLY OR GPL-3.0 ONLY) > > > > That's certainly possible as well, and it would be easier to

Re: [spdx-tech] various threads on "only" suffix (for GPL)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 03:15:44PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > J Lovejoy: > > Thanks Bradley. Your point re: other licenses building in a de > > facto “or later” clause versus the GPL family of licenses leaving > > the choice to the copyright holders is exactly the thing I wanted > > to

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 05:29:52PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > > So basically “use an exception when the author asks for it, > > otherwise use a new license”. > > Typically the "WITH" clauses are for a separate fragment of text > that can be added to the "end" of a base license as a "rider".

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:57PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > Following our existing pattern for variations on BSD (listed below > for reference), we might want to consider: > Full name: BSD 2-clause plus Patent (could also be BSD 2-Clause with > Patent - as the use of with in the full name is not

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:39:21AM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > This would not be treated as an exception because it was drafted > (and submitted to the OSI) as a complete license, not as an > exception or separate, add-able text to BSD-2-Clause. While you > raise a good point about the potential

Re: Package licensing part I - the approach - was Github example

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:07:52AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > The other SPDX is the use of something that *superficially* looks > like SPDX-conformant license expressions to describe licensing in a > way that is, I guess, outside the intended scope of SPDX. Examples > of this nonconformant

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense (was: GPLv2 - Github example)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:01:32PM +, Zavras, Alexios wrote: > Besides the case of GPL version numbers, isn't the issue similar to > when we have cases like where you have a package that simply says > "This program is under the BSD license" This is definitely a similar case. The difference

Re: Package licensing part I - the approach - was Github example

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:02:00AM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > How does one define “accurate and complete” when a package’s “top > level” license does not represent all the files contained within the > package (think license diversity). Although there was no standard > agreement on what “accurate

EPL-2.0 final text (was: meeting tomorrow, general update)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:10:44PM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote: > Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice > > "This Source Code may also be made available under the following > Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth > in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:19:04AM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> 3.15 Declared License > > The problem with this field does not lie with the LEL but with the values the > "field" will accept. > > "This field lists the licenses that have been declared by the > authors of The package.

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense (was: GPLv2 - Github example)

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 09:44:21AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > W. Trevor King wrote: > > I don't think any of the examples there have a declared package > > license. > > I believe putting a copy of GPL in a repository is declaring a > package license. You may be ab

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:36:01PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org URL, and > specifically Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first > discussed on spdx-legal… Unversioned license changes… exciting :p. I also see that the initial

Re: License identifiers sufficient to avoid loss of information in DeclaredLicense (was: GPLv2 - Github example)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:47:25AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > I began to think carefully about this question, what *is* the "Declared > License" -- by the package authors -- in the examples at > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal#Examples_.2F_Challenges I don't

Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata

y identical to the OSI MIT license and also does not match the > SPDX license "MIT", but does match the SPDX license "X11". They also list the Expat license as free and GPL-compatible [5], and it matches the SPDX MIT [6]. So you can say the FSF considers the SPDX MIT free and GPL

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:28:02AM +, Marc Jones wrote: > It is not clear to me that it makes sense to say a code base is both > GPLv2 and verbatim, simply because the text of the license is > copyrighted and you do not have permission to modify the license > text. So let's replace “license”

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:04:57PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> With the ‘only’ operator proposal [1], this situation can be > >> represented by ‘CDDL-1.0 only’. > > … Finally this case can be elegantly handled with a LicenseRef… But you can't define a LicenseRef in sitations (like npm [1])

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:40:05PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > I know that the following CDDL was discussed with respect to the > “only” problem: > > * This file and its contents are supplied under the terms of the > * Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL"), version 1.0. > * You may

New license proposal: Verbatim

While reviewing [1], I noticed: 1 text file with license text of GPL-2.0 = GPL-2.0 That makes sense if we're talking about the estimated project license, but the license for the GPL-2.0 content itself (which would go in the *file's* LicenseConcluded [2]) for the is “verbatim copies only” [3].

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 12:21:43PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > There are also other works under that license, e.g. [4], which use the > exact same language. > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this > license document, but changing it is not al

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:41:23PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Out of curiosity I searched a bit just now and found in the earliest > extant GCC release, apparently from 1988, the license (GNU CC General > Public License) has this slightly different meta-license: > > Copyright (C) 1987

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 02:52:26PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Mark Gisi: > > the SPDX identifier model will need to accommodate a LicenseRef > > like mechanism... > > I'm not arguing to *remove* licenserefs, I agree they can be useful. > > My point is different. Since many users *only* use

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 04:38:57PM +, Andrew Katz wrote: > My recollection is that Apache 2.0 is under Apache 2.0, also. All explicitly-licensed licenses are going to eventually end up in some sort of loop like this (although you could have an A → B → A… cycle, etc.). Doesn't it seem like

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 05:36:45PM +, Marc Jones wrote: > Maybe I have missed it in the thread, but what are the terms the > "Verbatim" license would refer to? It looks like you may have broken the thread with [1]. It initially started with [2], which has the formal proposal, including the

Re: GPLv2 - Github example

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:26:56PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote: > >> But you can't define a LicenseRef in sitations (like npm [1]) where the > >> only > >> thing you can set is a license expression and you don't have access to the > >> broader > >> SPDX spec. > >> [1]:

[v2] New license proposal: GNUVerbatim

Discussion spawned by my v1 Verbatim proposal [1] seems to have died down, so here's a v2. Changes since v1: * Renamed from ‘Verbatim’ to ‘GNUVerbatim’ to allow for other verbatim names in the future (e.g. if someone wants to register [2] as GNUVerbatimWeb [3] or wants to register non-GNU

Re: [v2] New license proposal: GPLVerbatim (was: GNUVerbatim)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:30:21PM -0400, John Sullivan wrote: > Wary of confusion here. There is a license called the GNU Verbatim > Copying License, see: > > > Its text is: "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article >

Re: "unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:43:46PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > W. Trevor King: > > > ? = “unclear version” - this will be a new modifier to indicate > > > there is a lack of clarity as to the license version regarding > > > if any version, or later,

Meeting times and daylight savings (was: reminder: call Thursday)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:49:46PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > This is a reminder for our call tomorrow (Thursday) at the usual > time: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team With the first Sunday in November [1] in the not terribly-distant future, I was curious about how that page's: … every

Git's COPYING preface (was: [v2] New license proposal: GNUVerbatim)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:26:10PM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:15 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > I have a repository that contains two files with content under the > > GNUVerbatim license [1,2] (as well as some content by Linus, > > presumably under t

Re: Meeting times and daylight savings

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:48:17PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:29:41PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > > What do you need to make this happen - a new repo in the SPDX > > Github account to store the ICS file(s)? Name for such repo? > > We could d

"unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators (was: reminder: call Thursday)

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:49:46PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > Kate and I have discussed our last proposal (which was summarized > here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal) > with Richard Stallman and John Sullivan as to concerns the FSF, as > steward of the GNU licenses,

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:13:56PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > But this missed a key part of the core goals of SPDX: Implicit in > those above goals is that the SPDX License List (including the > license short identifiers and the license expression language) aim > to provide a “language” to identify

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:44:54AM -0400, John Sullivan wrote: > I understand SPDX doesn't want to make legal judgments. Which is > why it should indicate when there is uncertainty. While SPDX should avoid making legal judgements, I don't think it necessarily follows that they need to enable

Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation? (was: signifigance of nested parenthesis with only ORs?)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 06:21:05PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > The section you want to consult is SPDX specification version 2.1, > Appendix IV ("SPDX License Expressions"): > https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60 > > Subsection "Composite License Expressions"

Re: Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:08:28PM -0700, Gary O'Neall wrote: > The current definition for a file license expression allows for more than one > line: > "... The SPDX License Identifier syntax may consist of a single > license (represented by a short identifier from the SPDX license > list) or a

Re: Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:33:18PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Gary O'Neall [mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com]: > > If we have more than one line for a compound set of licenses, it > > would be ambiguous if the text following the first line of a > > compound license is part of the license

Re: Jilayne Lovejoy invited you to “SPDX tech/legal call”.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:56:00PM +, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > UID:F31FBFD4-9300-4B60-BEC6-81CB9A3EFDCD > DESCRIPTION:Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam\n Optional > dial in number: 415-881-1586\n No PIN needed > SEQUENCE:0 > SUMMARY:SPDX tech/legal call >

Re: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:17:22PM -0800, Gary O'Neall wrote: > > binary-confidence-expression-operator = "AND" > > confidence-expression = license-expression space "CONFIDENCE" space "0." > > 1*DIGIT > > confidence-list = confidence-expression *(space confidence-expression) > > [space

"unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators (was: update on only/or later etc.)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:10:02AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Just a reminder to all: when someone places a copy of the GPL, > version 2 alongside source code files this does not make the > licensing ambiguous; clearly there is a valid license… > > Any scenario you could interpret, we have a way to

Re: "unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:51:27PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote: > [2]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002317.html > Subject: Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX > Date: > Message-ID: <20171109195414.ga11...@valgrind.us> > … >

Re: update on only/or later etc.

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:37:50PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Deprecate the "GPL-2.0" identifier and add the word “only” for GPL > version 2 only, e.g., "GPL-2.0-only" > - this should not be problematic as it does not change the meaning > of the identifier. GPL-2.0 has meant ‘version 2 only’

Partial conclusions and ambiguous grants (was: only/or later and the goals of SPDX)

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 01:55:55PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > On Nov 9, 2017, at 12:54 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:12:39PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > >> The ambiguous operator (first floated as “unclear version” in > >> [3]) and my OR-

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:31:07AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses And they have an official position on the javierwilson/tonto case, where the GPL-3.0 text is in LICENSE, but no other file in the repository contains copyright or licensing

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:19:31AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > I think that whatever is done on the SPDX side to be > precise vs. being accurate-enough and good-enough will unlikely ever > be adopted as the magnitude of the education and changes required > would be immense… Backwards

Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:28:11PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > • Short identifiers must not be duplicative: newly added short > identifiers will be checked to ensure they are different from all > pre-existing short identifiers, regardless of upper/lower case Wherever we put this commitment, I

Re: SPDX License List 3.0 is now live!

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 03:26:47PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > Aww man, you've got to be kidding? You got rid of the "+" signifier > and now we have to write out words?! > > I really don't like this change. It makes things more verbose for no > benefit. This issue has seen a a lot of discussion

Re: License list release 2.7 or 3.0? (was: update on license list release)

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 02:27:19PM -0500, Brad Edmondson wrote: > We discussed on the Dec. 7 call and landed on 3.0 -- I think partly > because the spec was leaning toward 3.0 as well… Are we planning on breaking backwards compat with the spec? That would be fun for me when I'm wearing my

Re: JPNIC / BIND license text - not quite Sendmail

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 11:01:03AM -0800, Dennis Clark wrote: > Others may disagree (naturally) but I think the license notice > matches the SPDX "Apache-1.1" license. There are numerous differences vs. our Apache-1.1 template. For example, the JNIC license [1] does not include Apache-1.1's

License list release 2.7 or 3.0? (was: update on license list release)

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:44:44PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > A handful of us have been working away on the 3.0 release of the > SPDX License List. I think this can be a 2.7 release, with 3.0 to follow if/when some currently-deprecated identifiers are finally dropped. Are there any breaking

Re: Proposed addition to the license matching guidelines

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:20:54AM -0800, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > If we were to update the license matching guidelines to explicitly > ignore these, the tools could skip them without having to add the > alt and/or optional tags to the license XMLs. Alt/optional aren't all that difficult,

Re: Documenting the Pull Request process

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:36:30AM -0800, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > At some point, these issues will likely turn into a pull request > created by someone quite familiar with the current license XML > format. There currently isn't much documentation on the specifics > for the pull request

Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 06:16:56PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > Back to the Short Identifier additions are: characters, given the > various feedback on this thread, here is an updated suggestion. I'm fine with this proposal going out as you have it, but I've put a few suggestions inline in case you

Re: Update FAQ after license list 3.0

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:53:41AM +0100, Matija Šuklje wrote: > I was browsing through the FAQ and found out that since we > (re)renamed the GPL family in license list 3.0, we haven’t updated > the texts in the FAQ yet. +1 on updating the FAQ. I think we also want to explicitly list the spec

FSF status for FSF licenses (was: meeting minutes)

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:21:21PM +, Zavras, Alexios wrote: > … on the subject of FSF “free” field: let’s make sure that FSF’s own > licenses (GPL*, LGPL*, GFDL*, etc.) are marked as “free”. I think > their site lists only licenses by others, but our table seems… > strange having an empty

Re: Past and preview License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:04:05PM -0400, Brad Edmondson wrote: > I'm in favor of solving this (making html available for old versions > of the license list). I think it will help with adoption too, > especially as we move back to a more frequent release cadence. > > Perhaps add to the errata

Re: Last call for version 3.1 website review

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:48:07PM -0500, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > Please let me know if you know of any issues with the preview > website that could potentially hold up the release. I'd really like to have obsoletedBy exposed [1] to downstream consumers. For example, obsolete-license

Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:05:31AM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote: > FWIW, it is the perspective the Eclipse Foundation that, from the > point of view of a consumer, the notion of secondary license is > effectively the same as dual licensing. We therefore encourage our > projects to use the disjunctive

Re: EPL-2.0 and Exception

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:46:26PM +0200, Till Jaeger via Spdx-legal wrote: > EPL-2.0 exists in two forms as well (with or without Exhibit A > making it compatible to the GPL). My understanding is that the recommended approach is to use OR [1], e.g.: EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH

Re: Past and current License List releases

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 02:55:22PM -0500, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > I probably won't have time to get this working before 3.1… Is this an argument for moving the archives out of “admin-only WordPress activity” and into a public Git repository/branch (like [1])? That way non-admins can

Past and current License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > An alternative would be to use an ISO 8601 to express time. > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 > > Version: 3.0 published on 2017-12-28 > > Version: 3.0 of 2017-12-28 +1 to using ISO dates. It would also be nice to be

Re: PRs v. Issues for new licenses/exceptions

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:54:01PM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote: > Its currently just asking for an email on > https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license I think the canonical docs should be in-repo [1] and that external docs should link there. Folks are unlikely to create an issue/PR

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]:

Re: 3.1 release

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:28:57PM -0400, Steve Winslow wrote: > Apologies for any confusion from submitting as a separate PR, I'm > not sure how to modify or add commits to the existing PR at #551... You can stack your commits on top of the original PR's branch and then set that branch as the

Past and preview License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:14:03PM -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > We are pushing new versions of the license lists but we are NOT > keeping online the previous versions. They are only in git repos. > I think it would help a lot adopters to have all the versions (at > least starting with 2.6