I just published a preview of the 3.1 version of the license list at https://spdx.org/licenses/preview/ I also committed new license list data for the 3.1 release to the license-list-data

Thanks ARW and Dennis, Issue for this opened (and you can track progress) here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/636 The legal team will assess and decide on these licenses there. We

Hi Legal Team, For the record, the proposed license is currently recognized by ScanCode as tu-berlin.

Proposed Full Name: Technische Universitaet Berlin License Permissive Technische Universitaet Berlin License [???] Proposed Short Identifier: TU-Berlin-1.0 TU-Berlin-2.0 URL

I think the existing [1] (from last week) covers this issue. I'm arguing against addressing this in LicenseListPublisher, but I don't think we want multiple GitHub issues about past/preview HTML

I'm in favor of solving this (making html available for old versions of the license list). I think it will help with adoption too, especially as we move back to a more frequent release

Hi all, I’ve posted the meeting minutes and can sum them up here: We went through all open PRs for 3.1 release and resolved at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML. Tagged anything else for

Hi, Dennis, Sorry, I just found your reply now when checking old mail folders. The responsibilities in our house changed, and some things got lost.L As I said, I am not the author of the

Hello J, While Amazon did create this license, we also found a reference to an even earlier identical independent invention of the same license text, and included a link to that document. As

Mark, Do I understand correctly then, that Amazon created this license? While I understand the rationale (as you explained below), which makes sense and I can see others having a similar goal. But,

same time, same channel: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team we’ll look at what needs to be done for the 3.1 release and try to tie those things up during the call. As per my last email: my

Hi all, My apologies, but I got buried with other work and have not kept up on the 3.1 release tasks this week. I’ll get caught up and we’ll get this out next week. Sorry to be the

Is this an argument for moving the archives out of “admin-only WordPress activity” and into a public Git repository/branch (like [1])? That way non-admins can contribute improvements and admins

I have attempted to replicate the email conversation into a github issue: https://github.com/spdx/LicenseListPublisher/issues/11 Feel free to clarify or add any comments to the issue. I probably

Ha, you had gotten ahead of me, I didn’t realize you had already started the process after our conversations. We prefer the long name be “MIT No Attribution”. We (Amazon and AWS) very

Hi Mark, There is currently a request for this new license at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 I don't think we have a target date for completion of the request just yet.

Hi! * Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. MIT No Attribution * Provide a proposed Short Identifier. MIT-0 * Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception

+1 to ISO8601

+1 to using ISO dates. It would also be nice to be able to link to [1] in a way that will survive 3.1 getting cut. About the URL template itself, I'd rather not repeat “archive”,

Alexios makes a good point. An alternative would be to use an ISO 8601 to express time. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 Version: 3.0 published on 2017-12-28 Version: 3.0 of 2017-12-28 I