|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
So we're all on the same page in this discussion: are you are referring to this section of the GPL-2.0 license:
======================
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
|
So we're all on the same page in this discussion: are you are referring to this section of the GPL-2.0 license:
======================
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
|
By
Tom Incorvia
·
#1260
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
David:
I think you are misquoted my reply for being from Sebastian.
Pardon me, but I think the text(s) of the GPL define how the the
software is licensed...
As I said initially I agree this is indeed
|
David:
I think you are misquoted my reply for being from Sebastian.
Pardon me, but I think the text(s) of the GPL define how the the
software is licensed...
As I said initially I agree this is indeed
|
By
Philippe Ombredanne
·
#1259
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
Hi Philippe,
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#1258
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
Schuberth, Sebastian <sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote:
The issue is how the software is licensed, not what the text of the GPL (or anything else) is. The use of "+" to mean "or later" is a
|
Schuberth, Sebastian <sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote:
The issue is how the software is licensed, not what the text of the GPL (or anything else) is. The use of "+" to mean "or later" is a
|
By
David A. Wheeler
·
#1257
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
<sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote:
I not see any reason why a + would not be allowed in a reference, and
there is no ambiguity since the + always something attached to an id or
ref string, not
|
<sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote:
I not see any reason why a + would not be allowed in a reference, and
there is no ambiguity since the + always something attached to an id or
ref string, not
|
By
Philippe Ombredanne
·
#1256
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
The only thing is that it’s less succinct (slightly greater editing load) and likely to be forgotten/left out, limiting its usefulness.
From: Gary O'Neall [mailto:gary@...]
Sent: Friday, October
|
The only thing is that it’s less succinct (slightly greater editing load) and likely to be forgotten/left out, limiting its usefulness.
From: Gary O'Neall [mailto:gary@...]
Sent: Friday, October
|
By
Kris.re <Kris.re@...>
·
#1255
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
I like the idea of an attribute type in the element optional (e.g. <optional type=...). I believe it would allow tools writers as well as humans to distinguish an optional field easily and also allow
|
I like the idea of an attribute type in the element optional (e.g. <optional type=...). I believe it would allow tools writers as well as humans to distinguish an optional field easily and also allow
|
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#1254
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
Basically, <optional> is fine for all the optional sections, and could even be annotated if desired (e.g. <optional type=”footer”>). A potential advantage to specifying the “kind” of optional
|
Basically, <optional> is fine for all the optional sections, and could even be annotated if desired (e.g. <optional type=”footer”>). A potential advantage to specifying the “kind” of optional
|
By
Kris.re <Kris.re@...>
·
#1253
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
<license identifier=”SuchAndSo”>
<title>The Such and So License</title>
<copyright>Copyright © 2015 Foo Bars</copyright>
<body>License text ….</body>
<footer>How to apply this
|
<license identifier=”SuchAndSo”>
<title>The Such and So License</title>
<copyright>Copyright © 2015 Foo Bars</copyright>
<body>License text ….</body>
<footer>How to apply this
|
By
Sam Ellis
·
#1252
·
|
|
Re: meeting minutes
Hi Jilayne, Legal Team,
I think the UberConference 10 people limit needed more emphasis in the meeting minutes, so I gave it a bullet of its own in the "next steps" section.
Regards,
Dennis
|
Hi Jilayne, Legal Team,
I think the UberConference 10 people limit needed more emphasis in the meeting minutes, so I gave it a bullet of its own in the "next steps" section.
Regards,
Dennis
|
By
Dennis Clark
·
#1251
·
|
|
meeting minutes
Great call today, thanks everyone!
There so much good discussion, I had a hard time capturing everything,
so tried to get the high-level areas.
|
Great call today, thanks everyone!
There so much good discussion, I had a hard time capturing everything,
so tried to get the high-level areas.
|
By
J Lovejoy
·
#1250
·
|
|
Re: joint legal-tech call Thursday!!
Hiya Jilayne,
Looks like I've run up against the max participant limit.
Trying to join the conference but can't
kate
|
Hiya Jilayne,
Looks like I've run up against the max participant limit.
Trying to join the conference but can't
kate
|
By
Kate Stewart
·
#1249
·
|
|
joint legal-tech call Thursday!!
Hi Legal and Tech teams,
This is a reminder that the usual time for the biweekly legal call on Thursday will be a joint call with the legal and tech teams to discuss the proposal for changing the
|
Hi Legal and Tech teams,
This is a reminder that the usual time for the biweekly legal call on Thursday will be a joint call with the legal and tech teams to discuss the proposal for changing the
|
By
J Lovejoy
·
#1248
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
Hi Kris,
Excellent point on Excel - it really is difficult to do diff's (inside or outside of Git).
One more detail on the current workflow - we only maintain the license metadata in the
|
Hi Kris,
Excellent point on Excel - it really is difficult to do diff's (inside or outside of Git).
One more detail on the current workflow - we only maintain the license metadata in the
|
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#1247
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
Hey, thanks for the references. I’m sorry if I seem to be ignoring existing practices – a lot of the existing workflow and use cases I just don’t have much of a conception of.
I very much
|
Hey, thanks for the references. I’m sorry if I seem to be ignoring existing practices – a lot of the existing workflow and use cases I just don’t have much of a conception of.
I very much
|
By
Kris.re <Kris.re@...>
·
#1246
·
|
|
Re: New License/Exception Request
Didier,
Thank you for submitting your request, which has been added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions under consideration workbook:
GNU All Permissive License
added to the Licenses under
|
Didier,
Thank you for submitting your request, which has been added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions under consideration workbook:
GNU All Permissive License
added to the Licenses under
|
By
Dennis Clark
·
#1245
·
|
|
Re: New License/Exception Request
Rob,
Thank you for submitting your request, which has been added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions under consideration workbook:
Open Game License v1.0a
added to the Licenses under consideration
|
Rob,
Thank you for submitting your request, which has been added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions under consideration workbook:
Open Game License v1.0a
added to the Licenses under consideration
|
By
Dennis Clark
·
#1244
·
|
|
Re: Request New License and Exception: Open Cascade Technology Public Licese and Open Cascade Exception
Eric,
Thank you for submitting your requests, which have been added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions under consideration workbook:
OCCT Public License
added to the Licenses under consideration
|
Eric,
Thank you for submitting your requests, which have been added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions under consideration workbook:
OCCT Public License
added to the Licenses under consideration
|
By
Dennis Clark
·
#1243
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
Hi Kris,
Thanks for writing up such thorough proposal. This will make it much easier to discuss some of the specifics.
A couple quick items - you mentioned that you could not find the syntax
|
Hi Kris,
Thanks for writing up such thorough proposal. This will make it much easier to discuss some of the specifics.
A couple quick items - you mentioned that you could not find the syntax
|
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#1242
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
I neglected to mention that the changes I am suggesting are obviously version-breaking changes. They would likely be rolled out in SPDX 3.0 (or later?!) if we’re using semver, and there wouldn’t
|
I neglected to mention that the changes I am suggesting are obviously version-breaking changes. They would likely be rolled out in SPDX 3.0 (or later?!) if we’re using semver, and there wouldn’t
|
By
Kris.re <Kris.re@...>
·
#1237
·
|
