https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1302
--- Comment #5 from J Lovejoy <[email protected]> 2015-07-17 05:14:25 UTC
---
Thanks, Kris. Would Aug 6th work for you? Here is the info for the meeting:
http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team
and for joining the Legal mailing list as well:
http://spdx.org/participate/legal-team
(Iâve copied SPDX-legal here as well, so others will be aware of your
thoughts)
Thanks,
Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
[email protected]
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 2:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1302
>
> --- Comment #4 from Kris Reeves <[email protected]>
> 2015-07-15 20:45:04 UTC ---
> The understaffed/incremental approach is precisely why I chose what seemed a
> simple case to test with, before potentially submitting a bunch of them.
>
> I've found some other annoying properties of how people seem to be using
> licenses; the BSD 3 Clause license in particular seems to see a lot of
> variation; my test set is currently the top 280 modules on NPM, and I've been
> manually investigating every package that couldn't be matched. I took the
> approach of writing overrides in the SPDX markup syntax for a couple of the
> licenses, but found it to be a bit difficult/clunky once I needed a bit more
> flexibility.
>
> I'd be happy to join a call and talk about my findings if you'll have me, and
> as this discussion has kind of taken a turn for the broader, if you can direct
> me to the appropriate place to continue it, I'll post there.
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
