Not to unnecessarily self-promote, but this was the use case that made me write the SPDX-License-Diff chrome extension. https://github.com/spdx/spdx-license-diff. It also should work on Firefox (but

I think you should look at "Plexus": https://spdx.org/licenses/Plexus.html We even have a note that covers Dom4j 😊 -- zvr –

Hello, I keep stumbling on the Dom4J license categorization. Some people/groups label it as "BSD-style", while others argue this is an Apache-1.1 variation. The license terms:

Hi Sebastian, That's pretty much where we ended up on the call. LicenseRef-<namespace>-<shortform> We also ended up discussing where SPDX documents with these LicenseRef's could be defined, so

Hi Philippe, [G.O.] Good point on the license expressions. Including the URI expression in the license expression would make it difficult to parse. I suggest we separate this into 2 proposals.

Hi Mark: We surely could use a way to have namespaces of sorts for extra, non SPDX-listed license identifiers. This is something that I could use alright for ScanCode where we track roughly an extra

+1 on Kate’s proposal of pre-pending the ID with license-ref – It would make the ID’s backwards compatible. Gary

Hi Mark, I like the notion of using the DNS names being IDN as a way of prefixing this. We have the mechanism of "LicenseRef-" as a reserved prefix already for any id not on the SPDX license

Just following up, does anyone have any comments or suggestions for my proposal for SPDX Private License Identifiers?

Since these will be "private" (which I understand to simply mean "not in the official list"), why don't we simplify our lives and use URLs for naming as well? SPDX-License-Identifier:

HI Mark, I like the idea of a DNS naming approach to the private license identifiers. It neatly solves the namespace issue. Rather than having a URL pointing to the canonical license text, I wonder

I would like to propose a syntax for SPDX "Private License Identifiers". SPDX short identifiers and SPDX-License-Identifier declarations in source code and in compliance documents have proven to be

+1 ! Dave

Hi, Bill, I am not a lawyer, but this license has two drawbacks: 1) It’s pure existence aids license proliferation, which is a bad thing by itself. 2) Gluing the Soundcloud link to the

Die 18. 01. 19 et hora 18:30 Gary O'Neall scripsit: I can see no issues (at least after only my first coffee) and it looks really cool to me :) cheers, Matija -- gsm: +386 41 849

Yes exactly, that is correct Best Regards, Elmar

Full Name: Link To My SoundCloud Public License Short Identifier: LTMSCPL URL: https://github.com/joelotter/ltmscpl This license is NOT OSI-approved and it has NOT been submitted for approval to

Dear J. Lovejoy, Yes that should work since newer versions can always be auto-applied. Concerning version 1.3 it was not used in practice though I have forgotten to mark it as Draft until the OSI

that looks great! Jilayne

Greeting legal and tech team, Following up on last week’s legal call, Alan Tse and I discussed using some of the license diff features as part of the license submittal process. This resulted in