Hi J, Andrew, Welcome to SPDX-legal! Yes, it would be great to bring the open source hardware community into the fold. I think the easiest place to start is by using SPDX license identifiers on

HI all, The meeting minutes from our last call here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-10-18 A couple things to call out: Tech team - we’d really like your thoughts on the idea of

Nice to meet you, Andrew. Thanks for your work on Solderpad and CERN OHL. I use CERN OHL on Holoseat and have been meaning to get to know Solderpad better as Mach 30 prefers Apache style licensing

Hi J. As someone who is heavily involved in Open Hardware licensing (I wrote the Solderpad open hardware wrapper for the Apache 2.0 license, and I’m also involved in the drafting team of the Cern

Hello Spdx-legal. My name is J. Simmons (yes, I go by just the initial "J."). I found my way to Spdx-legal by way of npm and an interest in Open Source Hardware (OSHW) licensing. I am currently

(Updated with the license attachment.) Full Name: The Star And Thank Author License Short Identifier: SATA URL:

Full Name: The Star And Thank Author License Short Identifier: SATA URL: https://github.com/zTrix/sata-license/blob/a72e947589ac80df3a0e586f2cb3c154bb9923f0/LICENSE.txt Then license is NOT

J Lovejoy wrote just now: I was on the call today as well, and as I mentioned there, I was the person who initially asked they be considered separately, but as Fontana says.... Fontana wrote: ...the

Hi Richard, all, I have not had a chance to post the minutes from today’s call, but this conversation is something we touched upon in terms of planning for post-3.3 release. I agree that it would

I previously wrote, referring to https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655 On further thought, there are actually more underlying similarities than differences between these two exceptions.

Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we have our bi-weekly call today at 10am MDT (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=75&p2=394 ) We will focus on a couple hanging items to wrap up

I think this is a very likely situation. And to be honest, if I see some source code under e.g. GPL-2.0-only and the author¹ signed the GPLCC-1.0, I would much prefer having that expressed in a

Heya, This is a request for addition of the GPL Cooperation Commitment version version 1.0 to the SPDX list of License Exceptions ( https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html ) 1. Proposed Full

Hi Howard, For the long name, we can go with the first option, as it’s your preference. If we later add other open government licenses, we can always add “(UK)” then - the full name is not as

Hi Jilayne Many thanks for your work on this. I’d be happy with the second, (or indeed any), of the options for the long identifier. My slight preference would be for the first example, but

Hi all, We discussed this on the Sept 20th call and recorded notes in the issue here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/683 but I wanted to post on the mailing list to make sure everyone

Hi Howard (and moving to SPDX-legal list), We are just about ready to merge the three OGL licenses into the license list and wrap up the 3.3 release. But I want to do a final check on the full name

Thanks Gary, Steve - in process of updating now and adding text files. Gary - I followed the workflow instructions you added. Looks good. One question I had was - do we need to do any “special”

I took a look at the automated build failures under #1 below. These are caused by the missing license text. I think it would be good for the tooling to generate the license text, but it currently