We (FOSSology) have discovered some of our license short names that violate your list of allowed characters. For example, here is the output from your verification tool when I ran it against your

Hi Bob, Here’s some feedback on license identification in FOSSology based a recent scan I was looking at. I think some of the things I saw originally would be taken care of by using the

Hi Michael, Bob, Apologies for the delayed response here, this got a bit buried in the old Inbox. I had a look at the table in the link Michael provided. For ease of reference, I cut and pasted your

Hi Kris, Philippe and all, The markup language for the templates was crafted in a way that retains the original text. The optional tags surround the original text and the replaceable text has an

There are two purposes at odds here and, I suspect, responsible for the markup vs no markup debate. One is: a repository of data that can be used to identify license names/ids from content. The other

Hi Philippe, Comments below: There is already markup in about 15% of the licenses, as per our in depth discussions a couple years ago. The conversation on the call was about improving some of the

Adding matching markup inside the reference license texts will eventually lead to un-resolvable conflicts: - markup will make a license text no longer a reference - it will make it less readable or

For the last two calls: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-07-23 http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-08-06 Thanks! Jilayne & Paul SPDX Legal Team co-leads

Sorry for the last minute reminder! Call this number: (United States): +1-857-216-2871 User PIN: 38633 International: visit the URL at http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Jilayne SPDX Legal

Please join us for the SPDX legal call today (call-in information below the agenda). AGENDA Fedora List (Kate) Standard headers update (Mark) Mark-up bug raised on tech team call (Kate/Gary)

Hi Jilayne, We are discussing this in one of our issues: https://github.com/fossology/fossology/pull/478#issuecomment-121556613 Michael (cc’d) has added a table of new licenses we are considering.

Hi Bob, Nice to see that Ninka will be added to Fossology. Looking forward to checking that out in the near future. Cheers, Scott -- www.linkedin.com/in/scottlamons CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This

Thanks Jilayne. We look forward to your FOSSology feedback. FYI, in FOSSology 3.0 we are adding a third license scanner - ninka. The idea behind three scanners that operate so differently is to give

Great Bob! Funny timing, as I was just looking at some FOSSology scans (haven’t done so in awhile, it’s like re-visiting an old friend :) and may have some other feedback for re: license

Thanks Jilayne and Kate, It looks like we need to do some updating on FOSSology to be SPDX 2.0 compliant. Thanks for your answers. Bob Gobeille bobg@...

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:

Hi Bob, Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below: This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should

Hi Bob, Comments inline... This could be handled either as an explicit exception (add to exception list) or as a new license being added to the main list. Legal team is probably best ones to

We (FOSSology project) are having a discussion about how to name dual licenses. What is the SPDX policy on naming dual licenses? Here are some examples: 1. The Asterisk license is GPL-2.0 with

SPDX legal team, In case you are not on the tech team mailing list, an issue has been raised via bugzilla and the tech team, that we will need to discuss. Please see the full thread here: