Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: Change use of SPDX *-Identifier tags in REUSE.software and Linux kernel best practices?

Standardizing on "Valid-" prefix for any fields defined by REUSE.software will give us an easier way of distinguishing. +1 I think if we socialize it with the kernel community in advance, and then

By Kate Stewart · #2346 ·

Re: Change use of SPDX *-Identifier tags in REUSE.software and Linux kernel best practices?

If it is still possible, I would be in favour of that. It seems the Linux Kernel only makes use of this tag in three places¹ so far, so it still may be early enough in adoption to make such a

By Matija Šuklje · #2345 ·

Change use of SPDX *-Identifier tags in REUSE.software and Linux kernel best practices?

Hi all, I’m currently battling figuring out how to integrate SPDX through REUSE.software and am at a stage of severe head-scratching¹. I am CC’ing Jonas (FSFE, REUSE), in case he is not

By Matija Šuklje · #2344 ·

meeting minutes, etc.

Hi all, Meeting minutes have now been posted for the last couple meetings: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-07-12 and https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-07-26 We had

By J Lovejoy · #2343 ·

meeting today

at the usual time! We’ll try to focus on some of the really old issues or tasks that have been hanging around, and then look at any new issues. Update on the XML editor (GSoC project) if anyone

By J Lovejoy · #2342 ·

Re: Sendmail has Updated its license

Hi Legal Team, Here is the original URL for the Sendmail License 8.23 text that Tom Incorvia provided: https://www.proofpoint.com/sites/default/files/sendmail-license.pdf Regards, Dennis Clark nexB

By Dennis Clark · #2341 ·

Sendmail has Updated its license

FYI, the SPDX version of the Sendmail Liense is 8.16. The current version is 8.23 which contains additional language. I have attached both licenses. Tom Tom Incorvia;tom.incorvia@...;O: (512)

By Tom Incorvia · #2340 ·

Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

HI all, I’ve updated this, including one of Trevor’s additional edit below for the first bullet (the other suggestion you had was the same as I had, but my strikethrough seemed to have gotten lost

By J Lovejoy · #2339 ·

Re: New License Request: +CAL Software License

Thanks Sally, really interesting. I've created an issue here[1] where the SPDX legal team will assess the license, but in order to best make that assessment, we have a few questions in the

By Brad Edmondson · #2338 ·

New License Request: +CAL Software License

1) License Name: +CAL Software License 2) Short Identifier: +CAL 3) URL: https://legaldesign.org/cal-software-license 4) OSI Approval: Submitted and under review 5) Why the +CAL License?: There

By Sally Mindrebo · #2337 ·

reminder, update

HI all, We have the monthly SPDX General call in about 15’ - this is of special interest to the legal team, as the GSOC student working on the XML translator is presenting! Our bi-weekly legal

By J Lovejoy · #2336 ·

Re: SPDX: Shouldn't "only" be replaced with "

I didn't tell Stallman that I also emailed this mailing-list back when I asked him, that's why he said "so I will suggest it to them". However, I asked him to write to this thread but that

By David Hedlund <public@...> · #2335 ·

Re: SPDX: Shouldn't "only" be replaced with "

Richard Stallman supports my suggestion: "I think your proposed change is good, so I will suggest it to them." On 2018-06-30 16:31, J Lovejoy wrote:

By David Hedlund <public@...> · #2334 ·

Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

I'm fine with this proposal going out as you have it, but I've put a few suggestions inline in case you want to pick them up. This matches what's currently live [1], but it could probably

By W. Trevor King · #2333 ·

Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers

I’ve now updated the page further to remove references to the spreadsheet and a few other minor outdated items. I also updated the field names to be more accurate and consistent with what one sees

By J Lovejoy · #2332 ·

General call next week: XML editor presented

One other reminder: The SPDX general call is next Thursday (instead of today, due to holiday in US this week) on July 12th - the guest speaker on that call will be the Google Summer of Code student,

By J Lovejoy · #2331 ·

meeting minutes, etc

Hi all, Meeting minutes from last week are posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-28 As per the discussion on updating URLs to licenses that was going on in a couple

By J Lovejoy · #2330 ·

Re: SPDX: Shouldn't "only" be replaced with "

Hi Bradley, nice to see you again. You are right, I searched for "or any later version" (note the "or" word) and that was not found in the old versions of the licenses. But this doesn't make any

By David Hedlund <public@...> · #2329 ·

Re: SPDX: Shouldn't "only" be replaced with "

David Hedlund <public@...> wrote: Just for the historical record, the formal text has always "any later version", going back to GPLv1.... J Lovejoy wrote: ...However, shorthand for "or any

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #2328 ·

Re: SPDX: Shouldn't "only" be replaced with "

HI David, Thanks for your email. We endeavor to keep identifiers consistent and only change them under very compelling circumstances. The somewhat recent change to using “or-later” as part of the

By J Lovejoy · #2327 ·

1061 - 1080 of 3406

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms