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":

Philippe Ombredanne: That's not just what I say. That's what the spec says, and has clearly stated since circa 2010. This would have been a useful argument to raise in 2010 (when SPDX was drafted).

I am not confusing these at all. The gist of what I am saying is that the plus is a legacy that should not be there. It does not make sense to add to the large majority of GPL in the wild a + just to

Gary, I cannot envision a simpler implementation than splitting on spaces. A plus sign specified as a suffix that is not attached to a license key would no longer be a suffix to me, but something

<tom.incorvia@...> wrote: Yes, exactly that, and the related text found in the proposed notice text found at the end of the GPL text: ======================== This program is free

Good point. What makes this particular syntax more confusing is that pre-2.0 the + was considered part of the license identifier. It was promoted to an operator in the 2.0 spec which does create

Hi Philippe, [Gary] [Gary] My interpretation of the spec "GPL-2.0 +" and "GPL-2.0+" are both syntactically valid (as well as MIT+, LicenseRef-21+ and any other listed license ID or licenseRef).

I said: Just a few nitpicks on my previous email: * I realize that "GPL-2.0+" is in the list of "deprecated" license identifiers, so in some sense there is a "GPL-2.0+" license identifier. But I