Hi all, In light of our discussion today about updates to the CONTRIBUTING file and the process for submitting a new license, I have made proposed changes to the CONTRIBUTING file in a PR here:

see: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-11-01 Please note: we will NOT have a meeting on Nov 15th!! We will reconvene on Nov 29th. Thanks, Jilayne

Different Brad here (for those just joining the SPDX discussion). I'm also in favor of considering open source hardware licenses, and look forward to the discussion about guidelines. Bradley, I'm also

Thanks, Andrew. I for one had planned to submit Solderpad and TAPR licenses if things move forward with supporting OSHW licenses. -J -- J. Simmons, PhD President Mach 30: Foundation for Space

Thanks J I intend to be on the call, so as one of the drafters of the licence, I’d be happy to discuss any questions people may have and also present the roadmap for the release of CERN OHL 2.0. I

Thanks for getting the OSHW licensing question on the agenda. Unfortunately, I am not available for the meeting tomorrow, but I have submitted the CERN OHL v1.2 as an example request (hopefully I did

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. CERN Open Hardware License v1.2 Provide a proposed Short Identifier. CERN-OHL-1.2 Provide a functioning url reference to the license or

oops, also meant to add: discussion as to adding open hardware and open data to our license inclusion guidelines more explicitly - see: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/719 Yes, I

Hi all, We have our call tomorrow at 10am Mountain Time - REMINDER!! I believe Europe has already ended daylight savings/put their clocks back, while here in the US we do that this coming weekend.

That is a really good point, Matija. Qiwihui - can you respond? Are you the author of this license? thanks, Jilayne

Hi Bradley, Are you referring to the remaining issue, as discussed here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618 ? We did change the full names, as I think you raised (e.g., unproved and

J Lovejoy wrote: While I'd love to see all the CC licenses included, they aren't. :) (Not trying to open that discussion again -- just wanted to correct the typo Jilayne made there.) -- Bradley M.

Hi Sally, I don’t think we ever saw a response to the questions below, so I’m re-sending. Can you please provide an update? Thanks, Jilayne SPDX legal co-lead

I’ve just added an issue to consider adding the OHSW (as well as an open data) reference to our license inclusion guideline here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/719 We have a fair

In any case, should we decide to adopt this license, I would suggest we use a different short ID, as it could cause confusion with the widely known SATA/Serial

…this brings up so many questions in me. Would I really not be allowed to use the software, if I don’t +1 it? What’s next – “leave a favourable five-star review as a condition for you to

Thanks! Happy to be here. That was just what I was hoping to hear. Yup, I am happy to submit one or two as test cases, I just wanted to give fair warning that hardware licenses were on their way

I think it’d be useful but do wonder if our reliance on the OSD will be an appropriate guideline.

Ditto. SPDX can be useful within the procurement/supply chain across both software and hardware.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:46 PM J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote: Of course, we’d need to make sure we have the various open source hardware licenses on the SPDX License List first - we already