Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

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

By Rob Guinness · #2585 ·

meeting today

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

By J Lovejoy · #2584 ·

SPDX License List version 3.5 now live

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,

By J Lovejoy · #2583 ·

Re: An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

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

By J Lovejoy · #2582 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

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

By J Lovejoy · #2581 ·

Re: OFL-1.1 and Reserved Font Name

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

By Nathan Willis · #2580 ·

OFL-1.1 and Reserved Font Name

The SIL Open Font License 1.1 (SPDX short identifier OFL-1.1) and its superseded predecessor (OFL-1.0) have a notion of a "Reserved Font Name".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

By Richard Fontana · #2579 ·

FW: [GSoC Mentors] Announcing Season of Docs 2019

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

By garysourceauditor@... · #2578 ·

Proposed: two methods for for organizations to self-declare SPDX license identifiers.

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

By Mark Atwood (Amazon.com) · #2577 ·

SPDX tools and license submission, etc

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

By J Lovejoy · #2576 ·

meeting minutes

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

By J Lovejoy · #2575 ·

meeting today (soon)!

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

By J Lovejoy · #2574 ·

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment

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@... ---

By Michael Dolan · #2573 ·

Re: GPL-CC and Kernel enforcement statement

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

By J Lovejoy · #2572 ·

GPL Cooperation Commitment

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

By J Lovejoy · #2571 ·

GPL-CC and Kernel enforcement statement

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

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2570 ·

Re: An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

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

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2569 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

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

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2568 ·

Re: An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

The word "registry" always gives me flashbacks. Shared namespaces offer a unique kind of value, but always come with carrying costs, scaling stepwise with popularity. For example, the statutory

By Kyle Mitchell · #2567 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

Richard, Jeff: Agreed. What I am trying to achieve here is to make these become "standard" and known at SPDX. I think this is possible. <Jeff.McAffer@...> wrote: This ideal works in theory

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2566 ·

821 - 840 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms