Thanks for thinking about it. I was hoping the problem of finding a generic way of putting it would appeal to someone. Sure, this is the last one I did for the secure boot

Dne četrtek, 09. avgust 2018 ob 02:46:21 CEST je James Bottomley napisal(a): I have pondered on this for longer than I thought I would, but don’t have a proposal I would be happy with yet. Would

Dear Jilayne, In July 2018 the FSF updated its free software licenses list and the EUPL-1.2 is now "officially" listed as

Hi, I don't see anything in the SPDX license expression syntax that permits "OTHER"; without the prefix "LicenseRef-" this would be taken to be a valid SPDX short identifier that exists on the

Markus Schaber: ... In a SPDX license expression you could use "OTHER", e.g.: (AGPL-3.0-only OR OTHER). That's less specific, but it does provide *some* information, it and doesn't require that a

Hi all, We'll have our usual meeting today but keep it somewhat short and focus on reviewing and providing feedback for the XML editor. If you haven't had a chance to check it out please do

Sure ... as a lawyer just tell me if the form of words achieves what I need and is optimal. Thanks, James

Hi, Sam, Thanks for your reply - I think this covers the use case. About the validity of license combinations: The safest way is to have a whitelist with allowed licenses, listing also the kind of

Hi Markus, Referring to Appendix IV: SPDX License Expressions in https://spdx.org/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/spdxversion2.1.pdf, then SPDX allows for custom licenses to be named in the

Hi, this idea was inspired by https://github.com/NuGet/Home/issues/4628#issuecomment-411503940 It is a common situation that some project allows for multiple alternative licenses, some of them are

Hi James, if there is interest, I volunteer to help with this one. cheers, Matija -- gsm: +386 41 849 552 www: http://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje@... sip: matija_suklje@...

Hi All, I need to add an OpenSSL exception to an existing GPL-2.0 project and was hoping you'd already have one ready to go. Unfortunately, the only exception you have is OpenVPN specific, which is

Hi all, I just gave the XML editor a test run – using the Sendmail license differences - adding alt tags - as a test run. This way, maybe we can use this PR, instead of deleting 😉 First

I think the yellow changes the meaning of Source Code (i.e., “associated” is broader than “compilable and linkable”) and thus is a different license. Alan D. Tse

Hi all, I did a merge and compare and looks like most of the changes should be accommodated via markup (for different names) – see green highlighting in attached. There is one extra bit (in

Ok Matija. Will do. Kate

Your analysis is correct. We used Valid- to avoid confusion, and to make clear REUSE/Linux kernel use of it was an addition to SPDX, not SPDX in itself. The exception identifier was left as the

Dear spdx-legal team, regarding the "FSF All Permissive license" FSFAP: The license is called "GNU All-Permissive License" by the http://copyfree.org/standard/licenses and the

Please excuse me in sending another mail about C-FSL; I just wanted to include a list of software which uses C-FSL v1.1.: qcoan: https://www.elstel.org/coan xchroot, confinedrv, bundsteg,

Full Name: Convertible Free Software License Version 1.1 Short Identifier: C-FSL v1.1 URL: https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.1.txt OSI approved: not yet why we need this license: While the BSD