correct. SPDX’s goal is to create a common language with which to communicate information about (open source) software. The SPDX License List was born out of the recognition for efficiency in

Philippe is correct. We didn’t have written guidelines (aka, the “inclusion principles) for the first few iterations of the license list. If memory serves, all the CC licenses were recommended to

Mike: If I recall correctly: when we started we did add wholesale all the CC licenses without much discrimination. That's an incongruity that I can live with alright. -- Cordially Philippe

This interests me also. It's my impression, from both the license-list explanation and the actual list, that SPDX casts a broader net than either OSI or FSF. Substantial compliance is sufficient. I

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/689#issuecomment-423262092 (about a non-open-source BSD variant): I did not know license list candidates must have the general attributes of an "open

Thanks very much Jilayne.

Hello Matt, SPDX does not approve or certify licenses as “OSS compliant”. You might be thinking of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) which maintains the Open Source Definition and reviews licenses

Dear SPDX Legal I am writing regarding the application to add the Open Government Licence v3.0 to the SPDX list, which has the status of “on hold” since 2015. I would like to know what can

I would suggest the following: Full name: copyleft-next 0.3.1 Identifier: copyleft-next-0.3.1 - Richard

Richard, As the author of the license, do you have any input/preference as to the full name and identifier? (we usually try to ask the author, if the license is not submitted by the

Correct on both counts. - Richard

1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. copyleft-next 0.3.1 2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier. copyleft-next-0.3.1 3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license

dear spdx team, i'm waiting for a package licensed under C-FSL v1.1 (Convertible Free Software License) to be added into official repositories. a request for approval of named license should have been

Good morning, I would like someone to let me know whether the attached C-FSL license is acknowledged as OSS compliant. Thanks very much. Matt

dial-in info here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@...

Hi all, Sorry for the last minute notice, but I need to cancel todays’ call. We’ll be back to our regularly scheduled program in two weeks. Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team

I think a generic additional permission doesn't need to be specific like that, though and the fewer text substitutions, the easier it is to apply. I also think the "permission to link" part is

We’ll pick up with going through “old” issues, cleaning out. Sorry for late notice! Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@...

If the wording of openvpn-openssl-exception is acceptable, we could "templatize" its text and replace "OpenVPN" with "<SoftwareProduct>" and "OpenVPN Technologies, Inc." with "<CopyrightHolder>". For

Hi Jilayne and Patrice, I just confirmed that the tools that generate the license list web page is picking up the recent status change for EUPL-1.2 on the FSF website. It will be updated on