Re: Your license: full name and identifier

> Law & Policy Group > > ___ > > Spdx-legal mailing list > > Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org <mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> > > https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal > > <https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-leg

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

This seems to be equivalent to the ISC license from an SPDX point of view (see https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines: " Ignore copyright notices. A copyright notice consists of the following elements, for example: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or "(c) 2012 Jo

Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page

There was one notorious case of the use of GPLv2 with a permissive and restrictive additional term that was described at the time as an "exception" -- Red Hat's license for Liberation Fonts 1.0. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts#Distribution I wouldn't particularly recommend

Re: Should "Exceptions" include "additional restrictions"?

+++ Bradley M. Kuhn [Mon, 10 Jul 2017 at 15:56:09]: This proposal would change the nature of the Exceptions list to be a more general "additional permissions *or* restrictions" list. If that's where SPDX wants to go, then we should go further and rename the list entirely. IMO, that approach may

Re: New License/Exception Request: EUPL-1.2

Also, EUPL 1.2 has just been approved by the OSI (not yet reflected on the OSI website). On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:01:56AM +0200, Sébastien Règne wrote: > Hello, > > A new version of EUPL > > was released : > >-

Re: Your license: full name and identifier

t; SPDX Legal Team co-lead > opensou...@jilayne.com > > > > On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > > Hi Jilayne, > > > > Short identifier, yes - I will make those changes shortly. OSI has not > > been attempting to track the SPDX full nam

SPDX full names of GPL family licenses

Recently I posted something to this list, I think with another hat on, casting doubt on the value of SPDX full license names as opposed to the short identifiers. I have a situation at Red Hat where we'd like to use the SPDX full names for a certain particular purpose but we're finding that wou

Re: SPDX full names of GPL family licenses

as opposed to "or later)." and the notes accompanying the other GPL family licenses have corresponding sentences. - Original Message - From: "Richard Fontana" To: "SPDX-legal" Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 3:24:20 PM Subject: SPDX full names of GPL family

Re: SPDX full names of GPL family licenses

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:40:27PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > I'm still also in favor of removing “only” from those names. > > The last thread on this list that atttempted to resolve (or at least > summarize) the “only” issue is [1]. Ah, now I remember reading that. I apologize if I may have

Re: License checking tool available

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. > > Our guideline for equating copyright symbols includes (c) but not (C) > [2]. Maybe that's what'

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

sage- > > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 1:27 PM > > To: J Lovejoy > > Cc: McCoy Smith; SPDX-legal > > Subject: Re: Your license: full name

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: > Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com] > > Adding to the confusion is that FB frequently refers to their React.js > > license as > > "BSD+Patents" (plural), although that nomenclature appears somewhat > > recent (and, I think

Re: Two kinds of license version number ambiguity

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:36:17AM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Case #2 is a different situation, where we have *no* idea what > license version is being applied. It can occur when (for example) > someone says "This is licensed under the GPL" or "This is licensed > under the CC-BY license". S

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Regarding the secondary license support, should it follow what's done with MPL 2.0 (SPDX has separate license identifiers for MPL-2.0 and "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception"), thus something like "EPL-2.0" and "EPL-2.0-copyleft-exception"? I don't like the "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception" myself as

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

I think there's something a little odd about the EPL 2.0 opt-in GPL compatibility feature I hadn't paid attention to before (despite having reviewed the license closely during its drafting and the OSI approval process). The way the opt-in GPL compatibility works, the initial licensor of 'the P

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

t A says "is also Distributed under" it doesn't really mean "is also Distributed under" but rather means "is potentially Distributed under even though it is not actually Distributed under right now". Not sure it matters all that much in the scheme of things, bu

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:10:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > However, 2(e) makes me wonder: > > e) Notwithstanding the terms of any Secondary License, no Contributor makes > > additional grants to any Recipient (other than those set forth in this > > Agreement) as a result of such Recipien

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:28:07PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > It's not clear to if the Verbatim license is long enough to be > copyrightably, but if it is I'd guess it's copyright 1989 by the FSF > and self-licensed under the Verbatim license as a subset of the GPL > 1.0 (unless someone can tur

Re: New license proposal: Verbatim

Not to detract from your general point but Creative Commons has, admirably, placed CC0 under CC0. :-) https://creativecommons.org/policies/#license - Original Message - From: "Matija Šuklje" To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:03:01 AM Subject: Re: New

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

Just a comment, which seems to resonate with some of what you are saying and expresses something I've been struggling with for a while: As (mostly) an intentionally-not-watching-too-closely bystander wrt SPDX, for some time I've realized that SPDX means at least two different things. There is

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: > In > the last week, I've talked to people who Conclude them as GPLvN-only. I've > also talked to people who Conclude them as GPLvN-or-later, where N is the > version of the GPL that is put in the package directory. In other words

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

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 -- in fact I think it was that discussion that led to the change. - Original Message - From: "Dennis Clark" To: "J Lovejoy" Cc:

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

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:08:15PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > 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

Re: EPL-2.0 and Secondary Licenses

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:47:36PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > Hi All, > > We didn’t get a chance to discuss this on the call, so I’m sending around my > thoughts as to the newly minted EPL-2.0 (which will be officially added to > the SPDX License List for the next release). There were some questi

Re: EPL-2.0 and Secondary Licenses

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 02:05:31PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Richard Fontana wrote: > > I believe the Eclipse Foundation has already released some software under > > EPL-2.0 with Exhibit A specifying GPLv2 with the Classpath Exception. I > > think you're say

Re: [spdx-tech] Providing access to FSF license metadata (was: Issues added based on this weeks Legal Call)

W. Trevor King wrote: > I am against this in license-list-XML, for the same reasons I am > against our current osi-approved type: SPDX should not be a > canonical source of whether *someone else* has approved a license or > not. I'd much rather provide tools for Alice to start with an SDPX > ID a

Re: [spdx-tech] Providing access to FSF license metadata (was: Issues added based on this weeks Legal Call)

"J Lovejoy" wrote: > X11 is MIT with an advertising clause (and I just caught a typo in > the notes field on that topic - will fix that now!) FWIW I'd call that an anti-publicity clause (to avoid confusion with the BSD-4-Clause advertising clause). > If OSI considers X11 OSI-approved as well, t

Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata

W. Trevor King wrote: > 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-compatible. Ah right - so not as interesting an example as others I was thinking of. I've been thinking about t

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

You could certainly reformulate this commitment so that it would look like a traditional GPLv2 exception or GPLv3 additional permission. But I wouldn't expect it to appear in or even be referenced in source code, so at least for that reason wouldn't it be out of scope for SPDX representation? Rich

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:23:40AM -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > Richard Fontana wrote: > > You could certainly reformulate this commitment so that it would look like > > a traditional GPLv2 exception or GPLv3 additional permission. But I > > wouldn't expe

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:04:15AM -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > As I understand Richard's reasons, they relate to license documents that > *don't* appear in a source code repository, which is the case for the Google > and Red Hat statements today. Right. I can't really see a justification for c

Re: this likely calls for a new L/GPL "exception"?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:07:37PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > > say I am a user of 5,000 packages. Some of which come with this L/GPL > rider, some not: I could see some value there. But then again, it may > be a point minor enough that this may not be worth tracking in SPDX. > And of cou

W3C-20150513 now OSI approved

Hi, The OSI has now approved the license SPDX publishes at https://spdx.org/licenses/W3C-20150513.html . Richard ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: W3C-20150513 now OSI approved

ilto:spdx-legal- > > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana > > Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 7:26 AM > > To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org > > Subject: W3C-20150513 now OSI approved > > > > Hi, > > > > The OSI has now approved the licens

Re: New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 10:08:13AM -0500, Kuno Woudt wrote: > > 5. Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved (see: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) or whether it has been > submitted for approval to the OSI and is currently under review. > > The license is not formally OSI

Re: New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

yleft-next Richard, As the author of the license, do you have any input/preference as to the full name and identifier? (we usually try to ask the author, if the license is not submitted by the author) Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com On Sep 20, 2018, at 3:39

New Exception Request: GPL Cooperation Commitment 1.0

Heya, This is a request for addition of the GPL Cooperation Commitment version version 1.0 to the SPDX list of License Exceptions ( https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html ) 1. Proposed Full Name: GPL Cooperation Commitment 1.0 2. Proposed Short Identifier: GPLCC-1.0 3. URL refere

Re: New Exception Request: GPL Cooperation Commitment 1.0

I previously wrote, referring to https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655 > as Bradley Kuhn says in a comment to that issue, "drafted somewhat > differently and therefore presumably should be analyzed differently > so as not to conflate apples and oranges". On further thought, there ar

Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday

Should that be 12 noon Eastern time? (or 8am Pacific?) - Original Message - From: "J Lovejoy" To: "SPDX-legal" Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 11:20:10 PM Subject: meeting tomorrow/Thursday Hi all, We’ll be back on our regularly scheduled call tomorrow/Thursday at 9am Pacifi

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

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 07:20:15PM -0500, Michael Dolan wrote: > The Common Cure Rights Commitment (CCRC) which was based on the KES also > applies to an indefinite pool of projects. If one or a few of the companies > own all the copyright, my recommendation would be to just relicense the > project

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

I've thought further about the issue of whether GPLCC, as a possible future SPDX exception identifier, should cover the three GPLCC variants (Corporate, Indivdiual and Project), as seemed to be the consensus on the recent call, or whether instead it should just refer to the Project version (which w

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

ard - Original Message ----- From: "J Lovejoy" To: "Richard Fontana" Cc: "SPDX-legal" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 5:32:34 PM Subject: Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations Richard, You stated: > If SPDX adopts an identifier solely for

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

adopting unless they are actually used), we could use that as an opportunity to try to get at least those Red Hat-maintained projects adopting GPLCC to use SPDX-License-Identifier in source files. :-) Richard - Original Message - From: "Richard Fontana" To: "J Lovej

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 08:51:10AM -0500, Karen Sandler wrote: > * A few Linux developers have expressed an opinion that they would not use > this identifier to mark upstream code at this point, mostly because they > have not done the work mentioned above. James in particular has agreed that > it o

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

249aba%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636875774948859901&sdata=dBq66UPR0wShGDO0SNmM06x0geoU5pABTj1Gjus0%2FsY%3D&reserved=0 > nexB Inc. - > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nexb.com&data=02%7C01%7CJeff.McAffer%40microsoft.com%7Cd58f7

OFL-1.1 and Reserved Font Name

and possibly also OFL-1.0) with the Reserved Font Name feature be distinguished in SPDX from OFL-1.1 where no Reserved Font Name is specified? -- Richard Fontana Senior Commercial Counsel Red Hat, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2

SPDX-License-Identifier for composite-licensed source files

Suppose you're dealing with the following source file legal notice (example taken from https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/permissive-code-into-mpl/, itself adapted from the examples discussed by SFLC in this old paper: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:58 AM Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > > Even so, slapping a license on an uncopyrightable thing doesn't get you > in any legal trouble, so it's fine. Except, apparently, if you're a conservative lawyer at certain U.S. federal government agencies! Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: documentation/examples of License Ref?

>> authors to express their own license terms. >> >> -- >> Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 >> >> >> > > > -- > Steve Winslow > Director of Strategic Programs > The Linux Foundation > swins...@linuxfoundation.org > -- R

Re: FW: Invalid SPDX identifier in Linux source tree

; > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > > > The SPDX list of license identifiers (https://spdx.org/licenses/) does not > include GPL-2.0+ in any form. The closest would (presumably) be > GPL-2.0-or-later. > > --- > > > > -- Rich

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 3:48 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > I would suggest, though, that if we do this we strongly discourage people > from using these identifiers > for the 'copyright + SPDX-Identifier but no boilerplate' license scenarios. Hi Warner, Can you explain what you mean by "copyright +

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 9:10 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > So, things went from having the following at the top of all the files > > * Copyright (c) 2013 Some Author > * > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > * it under the terms of the GNU General Public Lic

Use of exception to communicate legal ambiguity

Greetings, Over at Red Hat, we've been gradually increasing our support of the use of "SPDX-License-Identifier:" in source files for various reasons. We've encountered some situations where a traditional project practice might be to insert a GPL license notice at the top of a file, perhaps follow

Re: License text for LGPL-3.0

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:48 AM Till Jaeger via lists.spdx.org wrote: > > Dear Steve and list members, > > In my opinion it is a good idea to add the license text of the GPL-3.0 to the > SPDX license information. > > The simple reason is that the text that pretends to be the LGPL-3.0 license >

Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification

McCoy's topic reminds me of a question I asked here some time ago: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2706?p=%2C%2C%2C20%2C0%2C0%2C0%3A%3Arecentpostdate%2Fsticky%2C%2Ccomposite%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C68280619 I wasn't really satisfied with that discussion; I was left feeling that in some situatio

Commutativity of SPDX expressions

I'm working on some draft documentation for Fedora around use of SPDX expressions in RPM spec file License: fields. I was surprised to apparently not see anything in the SPDX spec that says that the AND and OR operators are commutative. I want to assert that the expression "MIT AND Apache-2.0" is e

Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions

a bit more > user-friendly (on the topic of improving documentation…) > > Jilayne > > > On Jul 17, 2022, at 12:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > > I'm working on some draft documentation for Fedora around use of SPDX > > expressions in RPM spec file License: fie

Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions

es to different parts of the code. > Which militates to me toward a new expression, but I’ve made that point > already. > > > On Jul 17, 2022, at 11:22 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > > I'm working on some draft documentation for Fedora around use of SPDX > >

Idea: SPDX-DCO-File-License-Identifier

at minority of projects that use asymmetric contributor license agreements to handle licensing in of contributions. Richard On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:14 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > I feel like what some projects might find useful is something like: > > SPDX-License-Identifier-Concluding-Wh

Matching Guidelines and English grammatical differences

In Fedora a license has been submitted for review that seems to match HPND-sell-variant except that the word "appears" in HPND-sell-variant is "appear" in this license. https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/63 My prescriptivist English grammar is rusty but I think this can b

Re: updates to license submission tool

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:40 AM J Lovejoy wrote: > One outstanding issue we didn’t get to on our call (and captured here: > https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/issues/388) > - I think we can simply remove the “Standard License Header” field in the > submission form, does anyone disagree

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:17 PM Steve Winslow wrote: > > Jilayne -- yes, I'd be open to a lighter-weight or streamlined approach to > approving licenses submitted from use in distros such as Debian and Fedora. > > In these cases we have greater confidence that those communities have done > the wo

Re: standardizing opt-out of EU data mining rights?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 3:01 PM Luis Villa wrote: [...] > (1) Would SPDX be an appropriate mechanism for representing that opt-out > clause in a machine-readable way, eg via a short identifier + WITH? > > (2) This would be, to the best of my knowledge, the first proposed Exception > that remove

Re: Mismatches between OSI and SPDX

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 4:22 AM Max Mehl wrote: > In my organisation, we define all licenses approved by OSI as valid Open > Source licenses. However, we also increasingly rely on SPDX and therefore > also its license list. > > Recently, we found several mismatches between OSI’s list of approved

SPDX should take a stronger stance against vanity/promotional licenses

As I've been following the issue queue for github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues over the past several months, it seems to me that you get a significant number of license submissions like this latest one: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1790 The pattern is, someone has drafted th

Re: public domain dedication variants in the wild (found in Fedora)

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 1:00 PM Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > > - We track over 750 unique public domain dedications variations in > ScanCode Toolkit that we have seen in the wild, and you should > consider using these. I reckon that you may already be using ScanCode > to build some of https://gitl

Re: public domain dedication variants in the wild (found in Fedora)

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 2:38 PM McCoy Smith wrote: > FWIW, maybe this is an opportunity for SPDX to lead? > Most of these look similar, but not the same. I’m guessing a lot of the > similar ones would have the same legal effect, although the more dissimilar > ones, maybe not (depending on where yo

XML format is unsatisfactory

I would like to revive a topic originally raised by Philippe Ombredanne in https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/395 (2017). This is going to be a bit of a rant, so I apologize in advance. I believe the XML format used by SPDX in the license-list-XML repository is unsatisfactory for a nu

Re: XML format is unsatisfactory

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 2:47 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > The XML files is a representation of RDF. > > Another more human readable and editable RDF repræsentation exists > which is a *lossless* conversion: Turtle. > > On a Debian-based system, you can see how MIT license looks as Turtle > by ins

Re: XML format is unsatisfactory

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:01 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Richard Fontana (2024-01-14 23:41:55) > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 2:47 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > > The XML files is a representation of RDF. > > > > > > Another more h

Re: XML format is unsatisfactory

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:29 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Richard Fontana (2024-01-15 06:22:47) > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:01 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > > > Quoting Richard Fontana (2024-01-14 23:41:55) > > This doesn't really

Re: XML format is unsatisfactory

derstand the need to indicate various kinds of optional or alternative elements in some license texts, but I wonder if there isn't a simpler, more minimalist way to achieve this than what I generally see in the XML files. Richard > Sent: Monday, 15 January, 2024 06:29 > To: Richard Fonta

Re: XML format is unsatisfactory

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 8:51 PM Warner Losh wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:31 PM Richard Fontana wrote: >> But in a lot of these cases, the SPDX matching guidelines indicate >> that the structural element is not important. For example, newlines >> and blank lin

Re: SPDX license for Public Domain works?

I submitted the following issue to add a "license" identifier that could be used in this situation: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2294 (as a LicenseRef- this is already being used in the Fedora project). I think the problem with the Public Domain Mark is that it's not a license-l

Re: SPDX license for Public Domain works?

Ah that's a good point. I wonder if the language could be tweaked a bit to cover the "creative but out of copyright" case, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile. In Fedora's use of SPDX expressions, I think there is no situation that would necessitate an SPDX identifier covering some out-of-copyright w

Re: issues to review, call this Thursday, 7/11

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:51 AM Chad Whitacre via lists.spdx.org wrote: > Hey all, > > I noticed that FSL was on the agenda for today's meeting. Was it > discussed? I tried joining late, but I think I was too late (or had the > wrong link?). Sorry I wasn't present if FSL was discussed. If it was

Re: Interpretation of Python licenses and OSI status

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:06 AM Max Mehl wrote: I think most of your questions are pretty difficult but this one is relatively easy: > Why do most scanners classify the current state of the Python source code as > Python-2.0 although it’s at least Python-2.0.1? > Asked the other way round: Wha

Re: Interpretation of Python licenses and OSI status

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:33 AM Max Mehl wrote: > > Thanks to both of your replies, Steve and Richard. And apologies for not > finding the existing issues you’ve linked to. > > I am happy to see my interpretation matches the description of > https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2197

New OSI-approved licenses

Greetings spdx-legal, The OSI recently approved three licenses as Open Source: 1) eCos License version 2.0 (under the 'Legacy Approval' process) Text of approved license contained within: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html Note that the interesting part

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:24:34PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > > The OSI recently approved three licenses as Open Source: > > > > 1) eCos License version 2.0 (under the 'Legacy Approval' process) > > Text of approved license contained within: > > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-revie

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:32:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > 2) Free Public License 1.0.0 > > > Text of approved license contained within: > > > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-August/001104.html > > > > We have adde

CFP - FOSDEM 2016 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom

FOSDEM 2016 (30-31 January, 2016, Brussels) will have a two-day legal and policy issues track. In past years there have been SPDX-related talks. CFP details here: https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/2015-October/002202.html The deadline for submissions is Sunday 29 November 2015 at 23:00 UTC

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

ndley wrote: > Did this ever get resolved? > > On 11/17/2015 12:51 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:32:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > >>>> 2) Free Public License 1.0.0 > >>>> Text of approved license contained within: >

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 12:57:43AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > As far as I can tell, OSI continues to be unaware that unlicense.org or > creative commons zero even exist. The OSI is aware of them. There's actually been interest for some time in getting OSI approval of a license (or license-like in

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

fier is a much more serious consideration. We have a legal call this > Thursday, so any info as to why we should change that part or if my above > idea would be amenable to all would be helpful. > > Thanks, > > Jilayne > > SPDX Legal Team co-lead > opensou...@jilayne.com >

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

(Forwarding this to spdx-legal.) On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:56:09AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > Hi Jilayne, > > No but that was my thought as well after reading Rob's response. I > will check. > > Thanks, > Richard > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 a

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

ley wrote: > > > > The tl;dr of this whole email is "I humbly ask SPDX to retain both its > > original long and short names for zero clause BSD as the only SDPX > > approved name for this license". > > > > On 12/07/2015 01:56 PM, Richard Fontan

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

> > > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:56:09AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > >> Hi Jilayne, > >> > >> No but that was my thought as well after reading Rob's response. I > >> will check. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Richar

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

I believe the ball is still in your court on this? > > Rob > > On 12/10/2015 08:58 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > I don't think that is a good idea. > > > > I have described the situation to Christian Bundy, the person who > > submitted the Free Public License

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

Hi, > > 3) OSET Foundation Public License version 2.1 > > We don't quite have a canonical license document here yet (the license > > that was approved was a conceptually-typo-corrected version of a > > redline document). > > Great - we’ll need the license text - do you want to just let us know wh

New OSI approved licenses

Greetings spdx-legal, The OSI recently approved three new licenses: Licence Libre du Québec – Permissive (LiLiQ-P) v1.1 Licence Libre du Québec – Réciprocité (LiLiQ-R) v1.1 Licence Libre du Québec – Réciprocité forte (LiLiQ-R+) v1.1 (of some historical significance as the first non-English-langua

Re: New OSI approved licenses

t; before you create a URL, so we could keep those consistent. You mention that > the license text is CURRENTLY at the URLs; does that imply there is still > flexibility to change? > Thanks, > Phil > > From: on behalf of Paul > Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 8:06 PM >

Short identifiers

Hi, Are there any established SPDX standards or conventions for devising a short identifier for a license? I assume not but wanted to check. Richard ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: Short identifiers

Thanks Jilayne and Gary - that was the kind of information I was looking for! Richard - Original Message - From: "J Lovejoy" To: "Gary O'Neall" Cc: "Richard Fontana" , "SPDX-legal" Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 2:39:10 PM Subject: Re: Sh

Re: New License/Exception Request

It appears to be for the most part a translation of GPLv3 into Spanish. - Original Message - From: "Brad Edmondson" To: "J Lovejoy" Cc: "David Nina M." , "SPDX-legal" , "Malcolm Bain" Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 4:49:55 PM Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request Thanks

Re: SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:54:44AM -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Richard Fontana wrote: > >It appears to be for the most part a translation of GPLv3 into Spanish. > Malcolm Bain confirmed: > >>As Richard says, this is 90% or more a direct translation of GPLv3. &g

Re: legal call today!

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:03:25AM +, Zavras, Alexios wrote: > At least, Mark, net-snmp includes a version number to the collection of > licenses! > The other well-known culprit is newlib, with its infamous “COPYING.NEWLIB” > (also a collection): https://sourceware.org/newlib/COPYING.NEWLIB >

Error in SPDX version of Apache-1.1

Hi, The license text for Apache-1.1 has for clause 4: "4. The "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact apa...@apache.org" Assuming the followin

Re: Error in SPDX version of Apache-1.1

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:40:42AM -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > The license text for Apache-1.1 > > has for clause 4: "4. The "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must not > >

Error in SPDX version of Apache-1.0 (was: Re: Error in SPDX version of Apache-1.1)

. For written permission, please contact *apa...@apache.org. On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:53:53AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Hi, > > The license text for Apache-1.1 > has for clause 4: "4. The "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must not >

  1   2   >