Hi Armijn, From a quick look at the licenses on the license list, I see a couple that are close, but which would be considered different licenses under the SPDX matching guidelines [1]: * NTP [2] --

hello, I searched but I couldn't find it in the archives, so apologies if this question has already come up. Recently I looked at some old code from

Hi Stefan, thanks for reaching out. It looks to me like this one is equivalent (for SPDX matching purposes) to bzip2-1.0.6 which is currently on the license list [1]. So I don't expect that this would

Valgrind (http://valgrind.org) is mostly licensed under GPL-2.0-or later, but includes several permissively licensed header files for inclusion in arbitrary client programs. Proposed Full Name:

During the discussion about SPDX 3.0 and positioning SPDX as an option for the various SBoM efforts that are going on, one of the discussion points was about making the specification more digestible

Update on the spec git repo below: Gary

Thanks Mike - responses below! Yes, I think this is how it has been set up in the PR - as it’s own Appendix and .md file, so one can refer to it separately there. I suppose we could change links to

My personal responses in-line below. I've not discussed this with Steve or anyone... (and I will openly admit I'm not as familiar with these parts are you all are). For specs that have subcomponents

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, Some time ago, we decided to move the Matching Guidelines to an Appendix in the SPDX specification, instead of only having them live on a webpage (here:

Hello all, The next Legal Team meeting will be tomorrow, Thursday, Oct. 17 at 9AM PT / 12PM ET. I expect the 3.7 release will be complete and live within the next couple of days. So on tomorrow's

You have been invited to the following event. more details » SPDX tech&legal team meeting When Tue Oct 22, 2019 12pm – 1pm Central Time - Chicago Where https://zoom.us/j/663426859

Hello all, The next Legal Team meeting will be today, Thursday, Oct. 3 at 9AM PT / 12PM ET. On the call, we'll first look at finalizing approvals for whether to include the following issues in the

I plan on working on an update to the SPDX tools tomorrow, Sunday 29 Sept. This may impact the availability of the SPDX tools and the license submittal feature. Regards, Gary

Hello all, The next Legal Team meeting will be today, Thursday, Sept. 19 at 9AM PT / 12PM ET. The call will focus on finalizing any updates to go into the 3.7 release anticipated for the end of the

I'm not aware of a standardized license expression that would be used _in a short-form source code identifier_ to express these cases. Within the context of an SPDX document, one can use NOASSERTION

Depends on the license (e.g. CC licenses) and jurisdiction (moral rights), I’d say. So if someone really wanted to start a stink, they might use. But you’re right, this is wider than just

+SPDX-legal team for discussion. Thanks, Kate

Dear Patrice-Emmanuel, "Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via Lists.Spdx.Org" <pe.schmitz=googlemail.com@...> writes: Yes, this is correct, provided that "public sector information" is understood

A question for Bastien: The French law (CRPA - D323-2-1) states that public administrations may only use two "data" licenses for public sector information (without initiating an exception