Roger - Thanks for bring attention to these additional efforts. As a more general comment: There are at least five different stakeholders who need to be taken into consideration when determining

Hi Henri, While Mark is right that there is no official recommendation by the SPDX working group, there does seem to be a bit of momentum forming around the use of: SPDX-License-Identifier:

Hi all This might be of interest: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-114 and here is another project using

Thanks Mark. Partly I was wondering if there was value in proposing a change to that Apache source header to include the SPDX identifier somehow. :) Hen

Hi Hen, There is no recommendation by SPDX.org yet on whether to use SPDX short license identifiers within a file. There has been a fair amount of discussion with some concerns identified when

On 06/05/2015 02:33 AM, Matt Smith wrote: I'm not sure it should matter for SPDX but noting that there are two previous versions of the OGL from the UK and now many other OGLs from other

1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. Open Government License 2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier. OGL 3. Provide a functioning url reference to the

Hi All, I’ve begun to add the exceptions to the SPDX License List in preparation for the v2.1 release at the end of the month. A few things to ponder here or discuss on the next call: Should

Hi All, I am canceling the Legal call today. We will reconvene on June 11th at our usual time. I also just sent out an invite for a joint Tech and Legal team call for June 16th at 9am PT to discuss

Jilayne Lovejoy invited you to “SPDX Tech/Legal teams joint call”.

Tom, A call is being set up with the LF to discuss with them. There are a few other hosted services we would like to see as well. If that doesn’t work out, well send you a bill J. All kidding

Hi Gary, I wish I could offer to contribute like I formerly did, but I am now without cycles. Is the option to host the compare utility still being discussed? I continue to think that this

Hi, I'd like to propose adding the CECILL-2.1 license to the license list. The license list already contains earlier versions of this license, so the proposed details follow on from the existing

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

Here is my understanding of how the "AND" thread started: Mark brought up a concern about the meaning of AND. He felt this could be misleading to have to say AND in a top level package without

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Alan Tse <Alan.Tse@...> wrote: IMHO yes. This is really left to the SPDX authors to provide the level of details they want to provide. More is better but not

And just to confirm, does “OR” have the same 3 interpretation problem at the package level? I think the use of sub references may be the best solution as trying to do a package level license

Thanks for the input all. I would agree with Sam and Gary’s assessment. Just to clarify - the operator “AND” is defined in Appendix IV of the spec as "If required to simultaneously comply with

http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-05-13 Please note, we are trying to schedule a joint call with the Tech team on one of their regularly scheduled Tuesday meetings (10am PST) to

Greetings all, Sounds like I missed another good discussion - my apologies if I duplicate any discussion already made on the call. I just wanted to add my agreement to Sam's approach. One