SPDX 3.0 Release Candidate 2 is released and ready for review

Greeting SPDX community, We are pleased to announce that the release candidate 2 for SPDX 3.0 is now published and available online in HTML format: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v3.0/ You can also find the associated SHACL and JSON LD artifacts at

Re: [spdx-tech] FYI - SPDX Online Tools Upgrade in progress

y. Gary From: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Gary O'Neall Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2024 8:46 AM To: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; 'SPDX-legal' Subject: [spdx-tech] FYI - SPDX Online Tools Upgrade in progress FYI - I'll be upgrading the SPDX online tools over the next hour or two - it ma

FYI - SPDX Online Tools Upgrade in progress

FYI - I'll be upgrading the SPDX online tools over the next hour or two - it may be temporarily unavailable. I'll send a follow-up email once the upgrade is complete. Gary -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3501):

Re: XML format is unsatisfactory

Just adding a bit of historical context and personal experience to Alexios description below - which I largely agree with. The XML format is actually the 3rd iteration of formats the legal team has used to capture license information. Iteration 1: spreadsheets (open office format) Iteration 2:

Re: XML format is unsatisfactory

Hi Jonas and Richard, +1 on support for RDF. I have a feeling we'll probably be a minority, however. In the past we've opted for more simpler, more highly adopted (and arguably less capable) formats. No matter which way we go, I'll make sure we can translate the format into RDF for our

Re: SUSE Open Source project for the SPDX tool list

Hi Sebastian, The updated tools page is now live: https://spdx.dev/tools-community/ Let me know if you see any problems. Gary > -Original Message- > From: spdx-outre...@lists.spdx.org On > Behalf Of Sebastian Riedel > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 6:52 AM > To: Gary O'

Re: SUSE Open Source project for the SPDX tool list

Hi Sebastian, I just looked at the repo. I have to say – this is very cool! I can help get this up on the SPDX website under the open source tools section. Here’s my start on the description from the Github repo – please review/correct/add anything you’d like to change. TITLE:

Re: [spdx-tech] Question on difference in License Text HTML vs. JSON of Python Software Foundation License 2.0 (PSF-2.0)

Hi David, This may be better for the legal team as they maintain the source repository for the license list. However, I can answer your question since I maintain the tools that produce the JSON data (and I'm on both lists). Sorry I didn't reply sooner - I was traveling when our original

New release of the SPDX online tools

I just finished upgrading the software and hardware for the SPDX online tools. For a list of change, see the release notes at https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/releases/tag/v1.2.1 The compute server and database server has been upgraded to meet the demands of increased usage - and

Re: [spdx-tech] SPDX special meeting on Properties vs Relationships

Just catching up – quite a thread! Couple of inputs. I was in the discussion when we created the declared and concluded license fields, and the intent was that the declared license was a fact which can be verified by looking at the source whereas the concluded license was something

Re: [spdx-tech] GSoC '23 Proposal: SoftWare Heritage SPDX generation

Hi Harsh, You proposal looks very interesting and I’m sure it will provide a lot of benefit to the SWHID and SPDX communities. Since you are using the Python libraries, you can get early access to the SPDX 3.0 features using the prototype-spdx-3.0 branch

Re: Unicode

Just one additional bit of information on this topic. The JSON format for the License data was upgraded a couple years back to reflect the state of the “other URL”. The implementation isn’t perfect as it relies on less than perfect pattern matching and sometimes firewalls get in the way

New version of the SPDX Online Tools

to email me if you need more information. Thanks, Gary ----- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The informatio

Re: SPDX License Diff browser extension not producing report

I just checked on my Chrome and Firefox and they both worked for me. I'm using Firefox version 108.0.1 64 bit on Windows 11. Maybe something specific to the Debian version of Firefox? Gary > -Original Message- > From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of > Sebastian Crane > Sent:

Re: Mismatches between OSI and SPDX

One more input on this discussion - I've been collaborating with OSI on a more automated way of keeping the SPDX and OSI license lists in sync. This issue tracks the remaining items that need correction to the OSI data: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses/issues/62 Note that some of

Re: FYI - planned downtime for tools.spdx.org

them at https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/issues Thanks, Gary From: Gary O'Neall Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 8:04 AM To: 'spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org' ; 'SPDX-legal' Subject: FYI - planned downtime for tools.spdx.org Just FYI - I'm planning to update the software

FYI - planned downtime for tools.spdx.org

Just FYI - I'm planning to update the software at tools.spdx.org within the next hour or so (around 9AM Pacific time), so the site will be down for just a few minutes if all goes well. Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source

Re: for discussion: when can people start using short ids?

My vote is for #1 - The SPDX tools only uses the released license lists. If someone uses an ID before it is released, it may not pass validation. I'm OK with #2 with the understanding that other tools may not understand the license ID's until the release. I'm very much not in favor of #3, -

[spdx] SPDX Spec Version 2.3 Available for Review

ist <mailto:spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org> . Please submit any issues or proposed spec changes by end of day August 10. Best regards, SPDX Tech Team --------- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <ma

Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions

Thanks Sebastian - since we haven't finished the review of the version 2.3, I think there is still time. Best regards, Gary > -Original Message- > From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of > Sebastian Crane > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:13 AM > To: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org >

Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions

I've always assumed the AND and OR operators to be commutative and the SPDX Java tools take full advantage of the commutative properties when comparing license expressions. I would welcome a pull request to Annex D to clarify this since at least one member of the community found this ambiguous

Joint SPDX Tech / Legal call - namespaces

after the policy discussion on Friday. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns with the follow-up meetings or agendas. Thanks, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <

Re: [spdx-tech] No Namespace proposal meeting today?

Hi Sebastian, Sorry - I've been negligent at sending out the follow-up meeting information. I missed the end of last week's call, but I believe it was decided to not have a call this week due to the Linux conference and several people not being available. We're considering a follow-up meeting

FW: Minutes and follow-up from today's joint tech/legal call on namespaces

for registering namespaces. Thanks, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information trans

Minutes and follow-up from today's joint tech/legal call on namespaces

PIN: 3275 0470 68# We will continue the discussion on the Namespace policies and, if time, discuss the syntax and process for registering namespaces. Thanks, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile

Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

st regards, Gary From: Gary O'Neall Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 2:11 PM To: 'spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org' ; 'SPDX-legal' Subject: Minutes from joint SPDX Tech Legal call available for review Greetings SPDX tech and legal team members, Thanks to all the attendees of today's joint tech /

Minutes from joint SPDX Tech Legal call available for review

egal calls next week. Stay tuned for further meeting details. Best regards, Gary ----- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com CONF

Re: Follow-up SPDX Joint Tech / Legal Call - SPDX 2.3 requests and issues

T meet the license inclusion guidelines (otherwise - they should be submitted to be included on the license list) 3. Licenses namespaces MUST HAVE a contact 4. Licenses within the namespaces MUST BE maintained 5. Licenses within the namespace MUST BE publicly accessible Best regards,

Re: Follow-up SPDX Joint Tech / Legal Call - SPDX 2.3 requests and issues

Attached is a .ics calendar file for the upcoming meeting. Gary From: Gary O'Neall Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 10:33 AM To: 'spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org' ; 'SPDX-legal' Subject: Follow-up SPDX Joint Tech / Legal Call - SPDX 2.3 requests and issues Greetings SPDX Tech and Legal Teams

Follow-up SPDX Joint Tech / Legal Call - SPDX 2.3 requests and issues

with some good background reading and a more detailed agenda. Best regards, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com CONFIDENTIALIT

Re: list of license related issues

Greeting Jilayne, SPDX Legal and SPDX tech teams, I’ll create a meeting invite early next week to continue the namespace discussions. It will be a separate meeting from the tech call since we have quite a bit to discuss for 3.0 and I feel we’ve been starving the 3.0 discussions a bit for

Re: SPDX Online Tools Maintence

. Regards, Gary From: Gary O'Neall Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 7:52 AM To: 'spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org' ; 'SPDX-legal' Cc: 'Rohit Lodha' Subject: SPDX Online Tools Maintence Just FYI - We will be doing a significant upgrade to the SPDX online tools this morning. The SPDX online tools

SPDX Online Tools Maintence

- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to

Re: SPDX files as templates

Adding a couple of facts to the discussion: * Over the last couple of releases, the license text field in the JSON and RDF representations as well as the license-list-data/text is a copy of the test license text

Any change requests for the license list publisher?

ext, wording or request for fixes to the license list data generation please let me know by the end of the week and I'll try to get the changes in before the next release of the license list. Thanks, Gary ----- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source

Re: Options for metadata license identifiers

Hi Richard, > -Original Message- > From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of > Richard Purdie > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:12 AM > To: SPDX-legal > Subject: Options for metadata license identifiers ... > My question is what to put in the recipe to identify the license? > > We

Re: [spdx-tech] About Generate Java SPDX Model Classes from XML XSD file

accessing it from a phone. SPDX tech and legal – feel free to reply if you see the possibility of a project idea in this area. Thanks, Gary From: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Bhavya Jain Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 3:38 AM To: Gary O'Neall Cc: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org Subject

Re: [spdx-tech] FYI - SPDX online tools availability and upgrade this afternoon

problems, please log an issue at https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/issues. Also, Gary From: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Gary O'Neall Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:43 AM To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org Subject: [spdx-tech] FYI - SPDX online tools

FYI - SPDX online tools availability and upgrade this afternoon

I plan on upgrading the production SPDX Online Tools at 3PM Pacific time today to a new release. During the upgrade, the tools will not be available. If all goes well, it should be back online by 6PM Pacific time. Gary - Gary O'Neall

Another planned change to the license generation

. Please let me know if you see any issue with this approach or have any concerns. Thanks, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceaudit

New License List website features

ed web pages as live pages (turns out there is a very large number of permanent redirects in the URLs). Let me know if you disagree with this approach. Thanks, Gary --------- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile:

SPDX Tools - update bookmark and request for review and feedback

Greetings SPDX Tech and SPDX legal teams, A new URL for the SPDX online tools is now be available at https://tools.spdx.org. Please change any bookmarks or links from http://spdxtools.sourceauditor.com or http://13.57.134.254/app/ to https://tools.spdx.org. A new version of the online

Meeting minutes posted

- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or

Re: Correct handling of snippets

Hi Max, > > 1. We would both be fine with REUSE-Snippet-Begin, REUSE-SnippetBegin, >SPDX-Snippet-Begin or SPDX-SnippetBegin, and Snippet(-)End >respectively. Would SPDX want to introduce such a tag as an addition >to the existing Snippet information in the near future, or should >

Re: Correct handling of snippets

We spent quite a bit of time discussing snippets in the SPDX technical working group. There are definitely a number of issues and considerations. At the conclusion of the discussions, there was a consensus that denoting snippets in an SPDX document was required for several use cases and was a

Re: documentation/examples of License Ref?

Hi Richard, Here are some minutes from a previous review mentioning a potential long term solution for non-listed exceptions: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Archive/license_expression_syntax I also recall a discussion on the topic. It has been a while (and my memory is far from

Re: SPDX-License-Identifier for composite-licensed source files

+1 on Kate’s recommendation. This format will be properly parsed by the SPDX Tools parsers (the 3 parsers I am aware of) and I believe represents the intent behind the AND operator. Gary From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Kate Stewart Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 8:49

Minutes from 3 Dec joint tech/legal meeting

Minutes from today's joint legal / technical has been posted to joint tech/legal call here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/Minutes/2019-12-03 Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586

Re: [spdx-tech] matching guidelines updates

Update on the spec git repo below: Gary From: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of J Lovejoy Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 7:41 AM To: Mike Dolan Cc: SPDX-legal ; spdx-tech Subject: Re: [spdx-tech] matching guidelines updates Thanks Mike - responses below! On Oct 17,

Minutes from joint legal tech call

- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

> -Original Message- > From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of via > Lists.Spdx.Org > Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 2:55 PM > To: pombreda...@nexb.com; SPDX-legal > Cc: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org > Subject: Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, >

Re: [spdx-tech] A proposal for SPDX Private License Identifiers. Example: .com.amazon.-.ASL-2.0

Hi Philippe, > > SPDX-License-Identifier: .com.amazon.-.ASL-2.0 > > https://aws.amazon.com/doc/ASL-2.0 > [...] > > In a SPDX-License-identifier declaration, a Private License Identifier > > can optionally be followed by a URI pointing to the canonical license text. > > This URI should be under

Re: A proposal for SPDX Private License Identifiers. Example: .com.amazon.-.ASL-2.0

+1 on Kate’s proposal of pre-pending the ID with license-ref – It would make the ID’s backwards compatible. Gary From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Kate Stewart Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 2:51 PM To: Atwood, Mark Cc: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Re: A proposal for SPDX Private License Identifiers. Example: .com.amazon.-.ASL-2.0

HI Mark, I like the idea of a DNS naming approach to the private license identifiers. It neatly solves the namespace issue. Rather than having a URL pointing to the canonical license text, I wonder if we could have a URL pointing to metadata about the entire license which would include the

Updated project ideas - new login workflow

- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2522): https://lists.sp

Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes

From: J Lovejoy Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 10:17 AM To: Gary O'Neall Cc: Steve Winslow ; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes Thanks Gary, Steve - in process of updating now and adding text files. Gary - I followed the workflow instructions you added

Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes

I took a look at the automated build failures under #1 below. These are caused by the missing license text. I think it would be good for the tooling to generate the license text, but it currently does not do this (we didn’t think about that need until just now). I’m struggling with the

Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes

I reviewed and merge #2: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/698 - PR for copyleft-next-0.3.1 The build failures were due to a problem already fixed in the master branch, so it should pass once it is merged. Gary From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of J Lovejoy

SPDX license XML tools integrated and available for testing

ring I would encourage you to try it out. If you try submitting a new license, please mark the license name in a way we know to ignore it - it will show up in the github repository issues. Gary ----- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source A

Re: Call today

Hi Jilayne and Patrice, I just confirmed that the tools that generate the license list web page is picking up the recent status change for EUPL-1.2 on the FSF website. It will be updated on the website when we do the next release of the SPDX license list. Regards, Gary From:

license XML editor available to try out

- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2348):

RE: update on only/or later etc.

I understand and agree with David's concerns - also coming from a tooling perspective. However, I believe this is a different problem than the FSF issue and a problem we have today with the current license expression syntax and the current license list. It seems we are talking about 2

RE: update on only/or later etc.

I think this is a good overall solution. It solves the issue raised by the FSF and is reasonably compatible. On the last legal call, I raised a concern that it didn't handle the case where the version may be ambiguous. After the call, I realized that we have this issue today and we don't

Update on license list XML work

ix any identified issues that are not related to issue #462 <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/462> . Gary ----- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceau

license-list-XML conversion complete

with the latest changes. Please review the preview site and create pull requests or issues for any formatting issues identified. Thanks, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailt

Proposed term for license XML and RDF property: fsfLibre

s term. This was discussed on the tech call and there was consensus on the call isFsfLibre is a better choice. Please let me know if there is any concern with the isFsfLibre term before Tuesday Oct. 31. Thanks, Gary From: Gary O'Neall [mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com] Sent: Friday, O

Conversion of license-list-xml to new format complete (almost)

ormat is available on the old-format branch <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/tree/old-format> . Let me know if you have any questions or run into any issues. Thanks, Gary --------- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mob

Getting ready to convert license-list-XML files

urrent repo to "old-format" then replace all of the licenses as well as adding the schema. I'll send an email update once completed. Thanks, Gary --------- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 E

RE: Providing access to FSF license metadata

> -Original Message- > From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:44 PM > To: Richard Fontana; J Lovejoy > Cc: Gary O'Neall; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal > Subject: Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata > > On

Issues added based on this weeks Legal Call

- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceauditor.com ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.sp

RE: Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation?

> -Original Message- > From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us] > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 1:59 PM > To: Wheeler, David A > Cc: Gary O'Neall; 'SPDX-legal' > Subject: Re: Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation? > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:33:18

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

> -Original Message- > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wheeler, David A > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 12:07 PM > To: W. Trevor King > Cc: SPDX-legal > Subject: RE: Spec recommendation for paren encapsulation? (was: >

RE: https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0 does not render

Hi Colin, The website should be fixed. Let me know if you run into any other issues. Best regards, Gary > -Original Message- > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Colin Finck > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 1:41 AM > To:

RE: https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0 does not render

Hi Colin, I'll take a look at this a little later today and let you know when it is fixed. Gary > -Original Message- > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Colin Finck > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 1:41 AM > To:

RE: Starting to work on tools for the new XML license

travis-ci or Maven experts on the distribution list, any help on this would be appreciated. Gary From: Brad Edmondson [mailto:brad.edmond...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 5:21 PM To: Kris.re Cc: Gary O'Neall; J Lovejoy; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: Starting to work on tools for the new X

Starting to work on tools for the new XML license

to fix while I'm in there (like the OSI text in the individual license pages)? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.

RE: SPDX License List v2.4 released

Hi Sam, I believe this was resolved a couple weeks back. I just checked and I did not see any error. You may want to try clearing the browser cache and see if the error still occurs. Gary From: spdx-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Sam

RE: SPDX License List v2.4 released

I just completed an update of the licenses web page removing the offending Let me know if you see any other issues. Thanks, Gary From: Zavras, Alexios [mailto:alexios.zav...@intel.com] Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 10:56 AM To: J Lovejoy; Gary O'Neall Cc: SPDX-legal; Sam Ellis Subject

RE: SPDX License List v2.4 released

. Gary From: Zavras, Alexios [mailto:alexios.zav...@intel.com] Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 10:56 AM To: J Lovejoy; Gary O'Neall Cc: SPDX-legal; Sam Ellis Subject: RE: SPDX License List v2.4 released Yes, it is J The copyright symbol in the footer (in “© 2016 SPDX Workgroup”) raises the parse

RE: SPDX License List v2.4 released

Thanks Philippe for pointing this out. Some of these errors were introduced when we updated the templates for a new website look. I always visually check the pages, but I'll add running them through a validator to the checklist when we update the site. I hope to get these corrected in the next

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: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?

Hi Philippe, > -Original Message- > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne > Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 1:57 AM > To: Schuberth, Sebastian; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal > Subject: Re: Is "+" a

RE: Markup proposal

I like the idea of an attribute type in the element optional (e.g. mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Kris.re Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 AM To: Sam Ellis; 'SPDX-legal'; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org Subject: RE: Markup proposal Basically, is fine for all the optional

RE: Markup proposal

Hi Kris, Thanks for writing up such thorough proposal. This will make it much easier to discuss some of the specifics. A couple quick items - you mentioned that you could not find the syntax for the current text. It is in the SPDX specification PDF file

RE: Markup proposal

are in individual text files already - one per license. Hence the suggestion of focusing on the license body text (as long as we are OK living with the diff's issue on Excel). Gary From: Kris.re [mailto:kris...@bbhmedia.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:14 PM To: Gary O'Neall; 'SPDX-legal'; spdx

Proposal to post .json files for individual listed licenses

, or objections, please reply before next Friday (10/30/2015). Thanks, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> g...@sourceaudit

RE: meeting minutes

Hi Kris, Philippe and all, The markup language for the templates was crafted in a way that retains the original text. The optional tags surround the original text and the replaceable text has an original property which retains the original text. There is actually an opensource tool (source

RE: The meaning of AND in license expressions [was:Re: call tomorrow, agenda]

Hi Philippe, Thanks for the context and proposal. I now understand better where the comma proposal is coming from. The proposal to add commas is reasonable and helps with the Debian community. I am still concerned, however, that having 2 ways to express the same semantics is going to be

RE: Please Consider BSD-JCharts Variant for Inclusion in SPDX List

The SPDX Workgroup Tools has a function which will compare two license texts and report back if the text is equivalent based on the license matching guidelines. It would not be much work to write a command line tool to compare a license against all licenses on the license list. I've

RE: Please Consider BSD-JCharts Variant for Inclusion in SPDX List

Hi Alan, The function is supported in the code, but there is no command line (yet). I plan on adding a command line in the next release of the tools. Gary From: Alan Tse [mailto:alan@wdc.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 9:35 AM To: Gary O'Neall; 'Tom Incorvia'; 'Sam Ellis

RE: license exceptions

I personally like this plan. For the SPDX tools, I can update the license expression parser and test it out prior to the rest of the SPDX 2.0 changes. This would make the changes more incremental and reduce the risk of big changes for the SPDX 2.0 release. Gary -Original Message-

RE: meta-tag page - part II

: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:42 AM To: Gary O'Neall Cc: 'Wheeler, David A'; 'SPDX-legal'; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; 'SPDX-biz'; d...@uvic.ca Subject: Re: meta-tag page - part II Dear Gary, In message 001f01cec2e5$9f1d9b20$dd58d160$@com you wrote

RE: proposal for license templates

Thanks Daniel for writing up the proposal. Overall, the proposal looks good to me. A few extensions and clarification I would propose adding: - There are 2 Posix regular expression flavors - would propose POSIX ERE since I believe most programmatic use of Posix Regex uses this