Hi, I’d like to ask for a new license exception to be considered for addition to the SPDX license list. The exception text is: The license below extends only to copyright in the software

FOSDEM 2016 (30-31 January, 2016, Brussels) will have a two-day legal and policy issues track. In past years there have been SPDX-related talks. CFP details

I intend to keep using the name "Zero Clause BSD" because it's the OpenBSD suggested template license with half a sentence removed. This suggested template is linked from the first paragraph

Looks like Rob Landley was using it a year or more earlier: https://lwn.net/Articles/608082/ Decided to copy in Rob Landley here. Rob: the license contained

Ah, okay. That makes sense. The only issue is that for some time there has been a desire for the URLs for licenses on the OSI website to match the SPDX short identifier. I think we will probably use

Hi Team, I missed the call last week and noticed we have approved a few licenses for v2.3 - but I don’t see any info in the spreadsheet regarding whether a template is needed. Was this

Hi Richard, Thanks for sending this! Kate and I were just talking about how we needed to create some kind of process to make sure that we add any new OSI approved licenses to the SPDX License List

Greetings spdx-legal, The OSI recently approved three licenses as Open Source: 1) eCos License version 2.0 (under the 'Legacy Approval' process) Text of approved license contained

Die 11. 11. 15 et hora 20.06.51 opensource@... scripsit: I have done a diff and the *only* difference is just in “ActiveState corporation” being added in the list of copyright

Hi All, We have our call today (in about an hour). We will mostly cover requests for new licenses, so please review the list

Hi All, I’d like to recommend that we add markup around the names in Plexus http://spdx.org/licenses/Plexus.html - dom4j uses the same license, but for the names and this is a common project, so it

Hi All, I’d like to recommend that we add markup around the names in Plexus http://spdx.org/licenses/Plexus.html - dom4j uses the same license, but for the names and this is a common project, so it

Dear Dennis, David, and all:

Dennis Clark: I asked someone else whose legal opinion I respect about this. (I don't have permission to share his name, so I won't do that here.) He said that the view of that article is misleading;

Dennis Clark: > I would be very interested to know if any of you have any thoughts about the TPP provisions that impact software distribution, particularly source code redistribution obligations: >

I don’t have solidified thoughts, but my current status is “deeply concerned" and would like to discuss. I’ll add my thoughts once I’ve had a chance to digest this a little bit more. The

Hi Legal Team, I would be very interested to know if any of you have any thoughts about the TPP provisions that impact software distribution, particularly source code redistribution obligations:

Adding additional postfix operators is an interesting idea. We do need to keep the existing semantics we've got here in terms of how the licenses are expressed (and other communities like Fedora and

Philippe Ombredanne: These are not minor technicalities from a legal point of view; versions are important. They control what is allowed and not allowed. It's true that many developers don't care

[...] David: I know this as I was part of it and that does not make it more right ... FWIW, I have been around SPDX for quite a while ;). See "A Short History of SPDX":