Thank you, Mike. I still find the name a bit confusing, as the first clause is, in my opinion, about more than attribution, but I also recognize these licenses are difficult to summarize with a

Hi Rob, not sure if this helps, but I found the minutes from one of the discussions here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2016-03-03 --- Mike Dolan

Hi everyone, I am new to this list, so first let me briefly introduce myself. I am working with FOSSID on a license detection tool. My background is in machine learning, and I have been working in

Hi all, Just a reminder that we have our bi-weekly call today at 10am MDT. I think Europe has now also set their clocks forward so we should all be back to our normal time differences. Being that we

Hi all, Version 3.5 of the SPDX License List is now released. Most notably, we have added several open hardware licenses (CERN and TAPR), which I think is a really sensible and exciting addition,

just a quick note on this: the leftpad issue had some very specific and extenuating circumstances that led to the mess it created which are really not applicable here. So while the legal team will

Hi all, I’m admittedly a bit late to this party despite having a few thoughts on the topic. This thread has quite a few aspects to it, starting with Jeff’s initial proposal, so I’ll try to hit

When I inquired about this topic ages ago, the impression I got from the replies was that the RFN mechanism was a better fit for the "Exception" list (or whatever it may be called going forward for

The SIL Open Font License 1.1 (SPDX short identifier OFL-1.1) and its superseded predecessor (OFL-1.0) have a notion of a "Reserved Font Name". In the case of OFL-1.1, at least, this is contemplated

FYI – This may be particularly useful for our working groups. Gary

As discussed at the SPDX meeting prior to OSLS two weeks ago. Proposed: two methods for for organizations to self-declare SPDX license identifiers. The two methods will be referred to a

Hi all, Gary asked us to log issues for any improvements we might think of for the SPDX online tools - particularly related to the submit license and generate XML tools. I have just added some notes

I just posted meeting minutes for today’s call (still need to add those from last meeting). https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-03-21 Please note: for merging the final PRs, let’s

Hi all, Meant to send this out last night, but as a last minute reminder, we have a meeting today at the top of the hour. Dial-in info: Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional

Looks good to me. --- Mike Dolan VP of Strategic Programs The Linux Foundation Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan mdolan@... ---

Hi Philippe, I’m not going to re-hash what was a very lengthy and (surprisingly to me) heated discussion on the Linux kernel enforcement statement, since that is all in the email list

Hi all, Towards the end of 2018, Richard Fontana submitted the GPL Cooperation Commitment for review to be added to the SPDX License List. We had some discussion about how that might work, but due to

Dear legal eagles: I just saw that the request to have a proper SPDX license id for the Kernel enforcement statement has been closed [1]. I guess I should have followed the discussion that happened

Kyle: Thankyou: that's all valuable things to consider indeed and hard earned from the leftpad issues. Though I doubt mere licenses will ever be as successful as npm! -- Cordially Philippe

Richard: Let me recap my understanding: I think everyone agrees that we want want more licenses in SPDX. Anyone against this, please voice your concerns now. The review of new licenses for list is