Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page

Looks great. I was not able to make the call, but nonetheless took a shot at concise-isizing: 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

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Most folks on this list are a lot more hands-on with these issues than I, but I’ve studied it a little so will risk tossing in my 2 cents. I conclude that the EPL-2.0 introduces a new concept not correctly handled by any of current operators and therefore requires a new operator. I don’t have a

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

It would certainly be better to go with OR as it exists. Anyone familiar with the EPL-2.0 (even if not familiar with SPDX) would be on the lookout for this feature of the license. And, there is the Comments on License field in which the SPDX doc creator could explain the meaning of OR in this

SPDX at Leadership Summit in March

As you may know, the Linux Foundation Leadership Summit is in Sonoma, March 6-8. Additionally, there will be group meetings on the Monday before and Friday after for SPDX and Open Chain respectively. The call for papers was just published. Please consider submitting a paper. There’s an

Re: update on only/or later etc.

Great. We will start calling you two Kings Solomon. From: on behalf of Jilayne Lovejoy Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 7:38 PM To: SPDX-legal Subject: update on only/or later etc. Hi All, Kate and I

Re: SPDX at Leadership Summit in March

Hello, If you did not respond to this before, please do now. Thanks Best regards, Phil BLACKDUCK L. Philip Odence VP/General Manager Black Duck On-Demand Black Duck Software, Inc. 800 District Avenue, Suite 201 Burlington, MA 01803-5061 E:

Re: Removing the Appendix from the canonical Apache 2.0 license

I’m not a frequent flyer on the Legal Team, but my understanding is that the matching guidelines handle text that comes after “end of terms” language explicitly, and with the markup language we support this with the optional text tag. From: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" on behalf of Henri

Re: FSF Licensing and Compliance Lab: 2018 and the future

Very heartening! From: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" on behalf of Jilayne Lovejoy Date: Monday, January 7, 2019 at 5:02 PM To: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" Subject: Re: FSF Licensing and Compliance Lab: 2018 and the future Resent-From: Philip Odence Resent-Date: Monday, January 7, 2019 at 5:02

Re: meeting minutes from today

of the SPDX team maintaining the main License List. -- zvr From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Phil Odence Sent: Friday, 31 May, 2019 14:12 To: Michael Dolan ; J Lovejoy Cc: SPDX-legal Subject: Re: meeting minutes from today I agree we should err on the inclusive side. In conce

Re: meeting minutes from today

in SPDX, but this is a particular choke point. The SPDX Legal Group is very welcoming and the leaders are some of the nicest folks I know. Phil On 6/3/19, 5:12 PM, "Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Kyle Mitchell" wrote: On 2019-06-03 20:06, David A. Wheeler wrote:

Re: meeting minutes from today

I agree we should err on the inclusive side. In concept, I think the driver should be popularity more than OSS definition. It’s better for users to include commonly used open source-like license. JSON and WTFPL (maybe this complies, but it’s not on the OSI list anyway), for example. We do need

Re: Fun with licenses

Good one for a Friday afternoon! From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Karsten Klein Date: Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:22 PM To: SPDX-legal , spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org Subject: Fun with licenses Hi all, did you know: „the and any this you license software for that not use with may

Re: A suggestion to use Relationships for the licence variants use-case

Steve captures my same reactions well. From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Steve Winslow Date: Friday, June 3, 2022 at 6:16 PM To: Ria Schalnat (HPE) Cc: Sebastian Crane , SPDX Legal Mailing List , SPDX Technical Mailing List Subject: Re: A suggestion to use Relationships for the

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

All makes sense to me. Good idea. From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Steve Winslow Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 2:14 PM To: Karsten Klein Cc: J Lovejoy , SPDX-legal Subject: Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines Jilayne -- yes, I'd be open to a lighter-weight or

Re: [spdx-tech] Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

Nice. This certainly makes it easy to map from Fedora to SPDX IDs! SPDX license identifiers have emerged as a standard Woo hoo! From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Steve Winslow Date: Saturday, July 30, 2022 at 12:06 PM To: J Lovejoy Cc: SPDX-legal , s...@lists.spdx.org ,

Re: 3.20 License List release

Yes, amazing! From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Kate Stewart Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 at 9:06 PM To: Steve Winslow Cc: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: 3.20 License List release Wow!40 new licenses. . . .  that's a milestone for the license list additions, I

Re: New SPDX social media handles, blog and brand update

...@lists.spdx.org Cc: Phil Odence , Kate Stewart , Gary O'Neall , will...@microsoft.com , Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org , Manbeck, Jack , seabass-lab...@gmx.com , alexios.zav...@intel.com , ramar...@mitre.org , mayw...@paloaltonetworks.com Subject: Re: New SPDX social media handles, blog and brand