Re: Name for a Standard License

If we are trying to be concise in terms of # characters, how about just ListLicense ? Jilayne Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity. On Jul 12, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Philippe Ombredanne pombreda...@nexb.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Gary O'Neall g...@sourceauditor.com

CORRECTION Re: SPDX License List v2.0rc-3 is now available

slight correction: version 2.0, release candidate 3 is *available* at: http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/ SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com On Feb 22, 2015, at 11:18 PM, J Lovejoy opensou...@jilayne.com wrote: Hi All, version 2.0, release candidate 3 is now live

Re: License Matching - Template Format issues Re: SPDX2.0-rc2 draft available

HI All, I’ve just updated the Appendix II to accurately reflect what is included in the markup, etc. Will need a review of some more technical folks, though :) Jilayne On Apr 2, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Bill Schineller bschinel...@blackducksoftware.com wrote: Hi Sam, For the Template

Re: SPDX 2.0 - posted in http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/SPDX_Specification_Versions

there are 106 instances of “SPDX file” and 74 instances of “SPDX document” - do we want to make consistent to one or the other? J. On May 4, 2015, at 3:00 PM, kate.stew...@att.net wrote: Sounds good. Thanks! Kate On Monday, May 4, 2015 9:54 AM, Manbeck, Jack j-manbe...@ti.com

[Bug 1302] New: Apache 2.0 license text includes appendix

I added a comment to Bugzilla, but will also respond here as well, in case that doesn’t get to everyone: The SPDX License List Matching Guidelines already account for this. Guideline 12 states that you should Ignore any text that occurs after the obvious end of the license and does not

Re: Spdx-tech Digest, Vol 58, Issue 2

. >> >> Since in RDF text and plaint-text tagged formats, there is no distinction >> between line breaks and paragraphs, I’m not sure how we can make one in >> converting to HTML. >> >> Yev >> >> >> >> On 9/15/15, 2:00 PM, "spdx-te

SPDX Legal call this Thursday

Hi All, In preparation for Thursday’s call, please review the following items in advance for our agenda. Announcements and updates (#1) are here only for your information (nothing to discuss on call). We will focus primarily on #2 for purposes of this call and then #3 if we have time: 1)

Re: Spdx-tech Digest, Vol 58, Issue 2

HI Gary, Yev, Just saw this and maybe I’m not clear on what is being discussed, but we do NOT want to have line breaks in the .txt files for the license text to be converted to tags in the HTML pages. I did a lot of work to remove line breaks from the .txt files just so that the text would

Re: Are SPDX license identifiers case-sensitive? (Ben Balter)

I feel like we had this conversation before on this topic and David’s suggestion was raised, which I also agree with…. digging into meeting minutes I found: - http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/Minutes/2014-09-16#Case_sensitivity_for_license_information - the tech team discussed this on

Re: Machine-readable form of license list?

Hi Eric, Gary O’Neall wrote a paper about the various ways one can access the SPDX License List, which is available in a variety of ways (beside scraping). That paper is here: http://wiki.spdx.org/images/SPDX-TR-2014-2.v1.0.pdf I’m also copying your email to the SPDX tech team, as that is a

implementing SPDX License List

Hi SPDX tech and legal team folks, We are wanting to implement the ability to choose a license/create an SPDX license expression in an internal tracking tool. I was wondering if anyone had done that already or knew of anyone who had or any other such info. It seems like it might be something

Re: Joint tech & legal call: License templates - today

HI All, It might help to review this page: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing before our call this morning. thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Kate Stewart

Re: Updated templates

Thanks Kris! Regarding Gary’s comment about input format and the additional tags for fields in the spreadsheet - I got a bit cheeky and just added a suggestion for the missing ones (url, notes, psi-approved) to your MASTER example and the explanations below but not to the MATCHING FORMAT (to

Re: Update

Thanks Kris! The legal team will get cracking on the exceptions and new licenses - good to know everything left to review is all in there. I’ve copied the tech team, as I’m hoping someone more code-savvy than I can parse the instructions on the tool below and then see how we can use that going

HPND & NTP

Hi All, During the SPDX bake-off it came up that NTP https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html can match to HPND https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html due to the template nature of HPND. The folks in the bakeoff wanted to know

Net-SNMP license stack v. using license expressions

Hi Tech team, We had a request to add the Net-SNMP license, which is actually a stack of 6 licenses: http://net-snmp.sourceforge.net/about/license.html We’d like to get some input from the tooling and automation on this - notes from today’s

[spdx-tech] reminder: joint tech-legal call at top of hour (10am Pacific time)

We will continue the discussion on + / only for licenses Please see: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation To accomodate a potentially larger group, please use the following conference

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

Hi All, I’m sending one email to both lists, as there seem to be a couple thread on the same topic (or maybe I’m just getting it as a couple threads by being copied). In any case, as Kate has already stated - we were just talking about this the other day and thinking through some paths to get

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

26, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> wrote: > > Jilyane, I'm glad work is proceeding on this. > > J Lovejoy wrote today: >> In any case, as Kate has already stated - we were just talking about this >> the other day and thinking through some paths to

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

SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Oct 13, 2017, at 12:02 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:20:33AM -0700, Gary O'Neall wrote: >> There is a request by the FSF and approved by the legal team to add >> a property to the listed licenses

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

> > By the bye, one thing I'd find useful, either inside or outside of SPDX, is > some > notion of correspondence of an FSF-approved license with a counterpart > OSI-approved, or SPDX-recognized, license. to be clear - the FSF does not approve licenses, they identify whether FSF considered

[spdx-tech] only operator proposal / general call on Thursday

Hello all, As per our last legal meeting and reports of the last discussion on the tech call, I have updated the proposal page (with a new page, old page archived for historical reference) here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal

Re: [spdx-tech] reminder: joint tech-legal call at top of hour (10am Pacific time)

so I’m not sure if you are subscribed to both and unsubscribing to both or one or the other) Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Aug 29, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Josh Habdas <jhab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Unsubscribe. Thank you. > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at

Re: [spdx-tech] license-list-XML conversion complete

woo-hoo!  thanks Gary!I think our next step is to add any new licenses or exceptions that have been proposed and accepted since 2.6 to the repository in the new format.  We discussed tooling for this, but that is not developed yet, so for now someone will have to do it by hand. I'd propose a

[spdx-tech] SPDX License List 3.0 is now live!

Hi all, Thanks to a lot of hard work by various members of the SPDX legal team, we have now (finally!) gone live with version 3.0 of the SPDX License List - including use of the new XML format for the master files and changes to the GNU license identifiers due to collaboration with the FSF. As

Re: [spdx-tech] agenda for OSLS

documents that lack some of mandatory fields, thus are not SPDX compliant, but this is still useful info. Should we have a “relaxed” option or some kind of grading for SPDX documents to encourage more use. Thanks! Jilayne & Kate > On Feb 27, 2018, at 7:06 AM, J Lovejoy &

[spdx-tech] meeting minutes from F2F

have been posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-03-09 (editing might be needed by others who attended) Tech and Outreach can link over to them thanks all who joined in person and via conference line! Jilayne

[spdx-tech] agenda for OSLS

HI all SPDX teams, Open Source Leadership Summit is coming up next week and the Linux Foundation has been generous enough to reserve a room at the venue the morning after the event ends for our face-to-face working group. We’ll meet on Friday, March 9th, from 9am to lunch. (room name TBD)

Re: [spdx-tech] agenda for OSLS

oops, forgot one of the topics - added to list below! > On Feb 27, 2018, at 8:05 AM, J Lovejoy <opensou...@jilayne.com> wrote: > > HI all SPDX teams, > > Open Source Leadership Summit is coming up next week and the Linux Foundation > has been generous enough to res

Re: [spdx-tech] Updated project ideas - new login workflow

that looks great! Jilayne > On Jan 18, 2019, at 10:30 AM, Gary O'Neall wrote: > > Greeting legal and tech team, > > Following up on last week’s legal call, Alan Tse and I discussed using some > of the license diff features as part of the license submittal process. This > resulted in a new

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

Hi all, I’m admittedly a bit late to this party despite having a few thoughts on the topic. This thread has quite a few aspects to it, starting with Jeff’s initial proposal, so I’ll try to hit all of them, even though the whole thread is not below. First of all, I am noticing some energy

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

just a quick note on this: the leftpad issue had some very specific and extenuating circumstances that led to the mess it created which are really not applicable here. So while the legal team will consider our scenario, leftpad is not instructive. > On Mar 13, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Philippe

Re: [spdx-tech] [spdx] Mentorship for GSOC Project

Hi Kumar, Thanks for your interest in SPDX! As you have not joined the SPDX mailing list, I have approved your message and also copied the SPDX tech team here. I believe the tech team is who you need to talk to about a GSOC mentor. More information about our 3 working teams and the general

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

Hi Philippe, I’m a bit lost on what the goal of this is. Can you provide a bit more context. I looked at a couple entries and noticed, for example, this one: https://github.com/nexB/spdx-license-namespaces-registry/blob/master/scancode/licenseref-scancode-bsd-innosys.spdx which then points to

Re: [spdx-tech] "Or later" operator is not well defined

Hi Vladimir, See below for a few attempts at some clarifications that are hopefully helpful. It's great you are looking at the SPDX spec so closely. I think you might also want to check out some of the documentation around the SPDX License List, as that may help clarify some of your questions

Re: [spdx-tech] Project: Registry and repository of License List Namespaces

Hi Tanjong, Thanks for sending this to the SPDX legal team and sorry for the delayed response. This looks good, but I have one main concern: how will people know when to submit a license to the namespace repository versus submitting a license for inclusion in the SPDX License List? Also, who

[spdx-tech] matching guidelines updates

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, Some time ago, we decided to move the Matching Guidelines to an Appendix in the SPDX specification, instead of only having them live on a webpage (here: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines ) And we have a PR to do so here:

Re: [spdx-tech] matching guidelines updates

d, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:14 PM J Lovejoy <mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>> wrote: > > 1) what do we do with the webpage/URL and various places that link to such? > redirect to the appendix in the spec? but then what happens when the spec > updates? (It’s really import

[spdx-tech] call tomorrow: joint legal/tech teams

Hi all, Tomorrow’s regularly scheduled legal team call will be a joint call with the tech team to continue the conversation about the licensing fields and consolidation of such for the 3.0 spec. By way of background or reminder: Currently, all license-related fields are contained within the

Re: [spdx-tech] Take on concluded license; introducing effective license

HI Karsten, I thought we discussed this or something very similar during the early licensing-profile discussions regarding a “distributed license” concept and it was put to rest? :) In any case, I think this is over-complicating things and sort of missing the original intent of the Declared

Re: [spdx-tech] Take on concluded license; introducing effective license

welcome your proposal to create/inspect further examples. Perhaps this gives the option to revisit things from the one or the other perspective. Thank you and regards, Karsten *From: *J Lovejoy *Date: *Friday, 17. September 2021 at 00:12 *To: *Karsten Klein *Cc: *SPDX-legal , , Thomas

[spdx-tech] proposal for Fedora to start using SPDX identifiers

I meant to send this to both the legal and tech lists, as I figured it might be of interest to both, but realized I forgot to add the tech list email, so forwarding now. - Jilayne > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "J Lovejoy" > Subject: proposal for Fedora to start

Re: [spdx-tech] [spdx] Message Approval Needed - s...@anthonyronda.com posted to s...@lists.spdx.org

Hi Anthony, Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to add a comment, but it appears to be closed. Thomas is active in the SPDX-tech team, but would be nice if someone from the SPDX-legal could add a bit - anyone part of TODO Group who can comment? Copying the tech team for awareness as well.

[spdx-tech] capitalization rules for SPDX license ids and operators

Hi Legal, Tech teams, I just want to clarify my understanding of capitalization sensitivity for SPDX license ids and license expression operators: Appendix IV states: /License expression operators (AND, OR and WITH) should be matched in a case-sensitive manner.// // //License identifiers

Re: [spdx-tech] SPDX-License-Identifiers in Snippets

Thanks Steve.  I agree generally with your statement in this email and have added a comment to the PR. To be clear, this is a chance to the Annex on using SPDX license identifiers in source code, not the Spec proper. I"m also wondering if this proposal (if accepted in a modified as per some

[spdx-tech] list of license related issues

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, I was trying to get my head around any and all issues/PRs/topics that are license related. Please let me know if I've missed anything on the list below! Given the pending 2.3 release, it feels like a bunch of stuff is attempting to get shoe-horned into the

Re: [spdx-tech] list of license related issues

, as that is not efficient use of time.) Can someone create an invite for that to send to the legal team? Everything else on the list below can (and will have to) wait for a later release. Thanks, Jilayne > On May 26, 2022, at 9:16 AM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > Hi SPDX legal and tech team

Re: [spdx-tech] Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

I wanted to clarify Philippe’s comment on how the SPDX-legal team chooses ids (which is generally documented here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-fields.md ) as specific to the examples mentioned below: (also note - this thread was cross-posted to the tech

Re: [spdx-tech] License Identification

(removing general mailing list and adding spdx-tech) David, A few clarifications below: Btw, you are not a member of the spdx-legal mailing list, so these emails keep bouncing. Could you please join it, so I don’t have to manage the bounces? :) Thanks! Jilayne > On Jun 17, 2022, at 11:43

[spdx-tech] stable spec URLs

(cross-posting to tech and legal team, as I suspect others may be interested) Hi SPDX-tech team, I just wanted to confirm my understanding of the various formats we now have for the SPDX specification and linking to specific sections. If I wanted to link to, for example, Annex D, in a way

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

Hot off the press! Link to blog post of this here: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/important-changes-to-software-license-information-in-fedora-packages-spdx-and-more/ Thanks for the support on this from SPDX-legal. There is more work to come, for sure, but being able to use SPDX

Re: [spdx-tech] stable spec URLs

> On Jul 26, 2022, at 1:41 AM, Max Mehl wrote: > > ~ J Lovejoy [2022-07-26 06:00 +0200]: >> If I wanted to link to, for example, Annex D, in a way that would remain >> stable with subsequent versions of the spec, then I could use the HTML >> format,

[spdx-tech] New Change Proposal process

Dear SPDX community, As mentioned on a couple of the general calls some time ago, the Steering Committee has been working on a Change Proposal template and process to facilitate communication, prioritization, and decision-making as to what major changes the project will work on. As the

Re: [spdx-tech] stable spec URLs

t version? Thanks, Jilayne > On Jul 25, 2022, at 10:00 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > (cross-posting to tech and legal team, as I suspect others may be interested) > > Hi SPDX-tech team, > > I just wanted to confirm my understanding of the various formats we now have > for the

[spdx-tech] Change Proposal: ExceptionRef-

Please see our first Change Proposal submission from Alexios here: https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/blob/main/proposals/ExceptionRef.md This is a cross-team issue for tech and legal teams. Please indicate your

[spdx-tech] joint legal and tech call Thursday, Jan 12th - Change Proposal: ExceptionRef

Hi all, This is a reminder that Thursday, Jan 12th at the regular legal-team call time, we will have a joint call for the tech and legal teams to discuss the change proposal: https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/4 Please see

[spdx-tech] Change proposal, 2023 meeting schedule, etc.

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, I’m cross-posting this for wider visibility as some of this impacts both teams: In regard to legal team meetings for the rest of 2022: we will have our regularly scheduled meeting on Dec 22nd and use that time as a working session to help go through the process

[spdx-tech] Upcoming Fedora Legal hackfest - converting to SPDX IDs

Hi SPDX-legal, As you all are well aware, Fedora has adopted the use of SPDX ids in its package metadata. So far, Fedora package maintainers have been updating the license info for their packages at their own pace. To speed things up a bit and offer some help on potential challenges,

Re: [spdx-tech] Upcoming Fedora Legal hackfest - converting to SPDX IDs

Time corrections from the original announcement: 14:00 - 18:00 UTC 10:00 - 14:00 EDT 16:00 - 20:00 CEST On 4/17/23 10:51 AM, J Lovejoy wrote: Hi SPDX-legal, As you all are well aware, Fedora has adopted the use of SPDX ids in its package metadata. So far, Fedora package maintainers have

Re: [spdx-tech] Reminder: Change Proposal on custom license exceptions / modifiers / additions

Hi all, I’ve added some comments to https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/4 and am looking forward to coming to a conclusion on our first official use of the Change Proposal process at tomorrow’s meeting (and apologies to Alexios that

Re: [spdx-tech] Upcoming Fedora Legal hackfest - converting to SPDX IDs

Hi all, We/Fedora have rescheduled the ELN Hackfest for Wednesday, May 17th.  Same time and meeting info as below. I'll send a reminder a few days out. Sorry for the last minute notice! Cheers, Jilayne On 4/17/23 11:53 AM, J Lovejoy wrote: Time corrections from the original announcement

Re: [spdx-tech] License with duplicated SPDX license ds

Hi Anthony, This is not an error at all but reflects the changing of the ids for the GPL family of licenses at the behest of the FSF in 2017, while trying to not break things for those people who had already been using the previous ids for years prior. You can read more about it here:

Re: [spdx-tech] License with duplicated SPDX license ds

deprecated license ids are no longer valid and should not be > used when reporting a license within an SBOM. Is this a correct > interpretation? > > Anthony > > On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 00:26, J Lovejoy <mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>> wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > This is

Re: [spdx-tech] Request for Feedback on Proposal

Thanks Vedant!  We are very excited to have you participate in our community! Vedant will be joining the SPDX-legal call on Thursday, May 25th to discuss his proposal, get to know us, and hear any other input about your experiences with using the SPDX Online License Submission Tool (we

Re: [spdx-tech] Discussing Change Proposal regarding DataLicense / CC0-1.0

Just want to reiterate that we have an SPDX-legal call tomorrow and will be discussion the Change Proposal related to data license. Please see Steve's summary below and associated links and come prepared! Thanks, Jilayne On 7/14/23 12:16 PM, Steve Winslow wrote: Hello spdx-legal and