Jilayne: Here are my 2 cents: - the text of the “assembly exception” is specific to the OpenJDK and derivatives: this code is used widely but there are very few projects that can use this

As a copyleft enforcement expert, I'll comment on this part: J Lovejoy wrote: ... I am perhaps missing a legal subtlety of the EPL-2.0-revised [0], but I suspect that when Exhibit A is exercised by

Thanks Gary!

Hi Wayne, Just found this after sending last message. I believe you noted that the “assembly exception” was not on the SPDX License List. Sounds like we should add this. I’m not sure if it

Hi All, We didn’t get a chance to discuss this on the call, so I’m sending around my thoughts as to the newly minted EPL-2.0 (which will be officially added to the SPDX License List for the next

Hi Colin, The website should be fixed. Let me know if you run into any other issues. Best regards, Gary

Where the file lives doesn't matter much to me, so I just went ahead and worked up [1]. If you want this to land in a different location, just point me at it and I'll open a PR against the

Hi Colin, I'll take a look at this a little later today and let you know when it is fixed. Gary

Hi all! Visiting the information page for the CC0-1.0 license on Firefox fails with an XML parsing error: https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0 Even worse, on less XML-conforming browsers like Internet

We could do that, and if we did, something like ‘meta’ might be a good name. But this is going to be a tiny thing that is rarely touched. It might be better to just put it in spdx-spec (as our

SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@... right, because I’m terrible at this! But I think this is right - basically the call is always at 10am Pacific time, or maybe I should say, 10am

With the first Sunday in November [1] in the not terribly-distant future, I was curious about how that page's: … every other Thursday at 18:00 GMT (10:00AM PT, 11:00 MT, 12:00 CT, 1:00PM

Right. The information you're trying to transmit are the hints. But you haven't concluded a single, specific license expression. Yeah, that's a situation where a partial conclusion (e.g.

J Lovejoy wrote: This final draft looks good to me. Yes, I figured that the update was going to happen as part of the 2.7 release. -- Bradley M. Kuhn

we hit the limit on the usual line: please now switch to this one: https://www.uberconference.com/katestewart

W. Trevor King: No, the issue is that there *is* some known information (e.g., GPL-2.0 at least is valid). The problem is that some *other* information is *not* known (e.g., if GPL-3.0+ is valid for

Ah. I'd only seen that text under the ‘VerbatimCopying’ tag in [1]. Yeah, which is different (as discussed in my initial post to this thread). With the FSF already using both VerbatimCopying

Does this mean we now have an official position on what the FSF for the concluded license of the “1 license file with GPL-2.0 license text; 4 source files with no license information whatsoever”

"W. Trevor King" <wking@...> writes: Wary of confusion here. There is a license called the GNU Verbatim Copying License, see: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GNUVerbatim> Its

Thanks for the reminder, Bradley. and yes, the final version is in the email that Trevor referenced which was: The SPDX License List includes a list of exceptions. These exceptions grant an