Hi Mark: <atwoodm=amazon.com@...> wrote: It looks to me as a proper historical permission (HPND https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html ) This has been detected by the ScanCode toolkit as an

Hi Mark, I believe that the proposed PILL addition to the SPDX license list will be a lot easier to swallow (!!!) if you put a Version Number on it. Regards, Dennis Clark

fair enough. hence, stepping away from keyboard now!

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. Python Imaging Library License Provide a proposed Short Identifier. PILL Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception

I’m thinking of an app that senses tone and asks the sender “you sure about sending to all those on the cc?” :-) From: Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of J Lovejoy <opensource@...>

Thanks Mike. I had started another email earlier this morning, but got distracted (ha ha…) by the actual meeting and tying up the 3.4 release, so just sent now. Let me make one thing very clear on a

I think this is getting closer to the crux, but I also think some terminology and associations of such is getting in the way: there seems to be focus on whether or not the KES is an “exception” or

Hi all, Today’s meeting minutes have been posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-12-12 We have resolved most of the 3.4 issues and PRs that we could. I’ve also gone

Despite being part of the lengthy discussions, I too am having a hard time staying on top of it all :) Since at the very least there is significant disagreement about whether the two are intertwined

I didn't find any reference to the discussion about whether KES should be classified as an additional permission or not in the email. However the discussion of whether or not KES is an exception is

To be frank, I haven't had time to read all the list traffic today but I see there are lengthy discussions. Given Jilayne's backlog for this release it's clear this won't reach any usual consensus

James Bottomley wrote: I don't think Karen missed it, in fact, she pointed out that she thought we have consensus on the same point: Yes, there is actually consensus on that. This was discussed on

to be fair and not to take anything away from Alan’s effort, there is another “hardware company” that has been using SPDX identifiers in its open source software projects for a few years now

Actually, you've missed the most important one raised by several people that KES isn't an exception at all. This is partly why there's all the noise on the SPDX list because if it really isn't an

I believe it was also pointed out that Linux's DCO policy, and the current wording of the DCO, could have the effect of seeming to force contributors to an existing file with

I think it's great that so many of us who are not typically involved in spdx discussions are now participating! Since I've been following things, I've noticed that we've had repetitive posts as people

Nicely done Alan! --- Mike Dolan VP of Strategic Programs The Linux Foundation Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan mdolan@... ---

Apologies for my late and perhaps ill informed entry here, but just so I understand what is being proposed, is the idea to create a new SPDX identifier for the kernel license plus KES notwithstanding

Thanks for the kind words guys. I figured it’s the least I could do policy-wise since I’ve been delinquent in participating through the list. But to be truthful, we’ve been seeing more projects

I don't think you need to apologize at all! My point was to answer your question about timing to give folks the full context to my original post and that it's not a new issue for anyone