donate

donate developpent

Hello all, The version 3.9 release of the license list is now tagged and live at https://spdx.org/licenses. Along with the usual assortment of documentation updates and markup tweaks, this is the

Hello SPDX community, This is a follow-up from discussions on several of the SPDX general meetings and workgroup calls over the past couple of months. The TL;DR version is: The main static pages for

Hi Felicitas, thanks very much for your email. I've created an issue for your message in the repo at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1026. Feel free to follow along and weigh in there

Hi, while adding identifiers to licenses used in the BSP (note: i am a legal trainee, so wording may not be technical perfect), i stumbled upon the The Open Group License, which does not have an

Hello all, the next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be today, Thursday, May 7 at 9AM PDT / noon EDT -- following the SPDX general meeting an hour earlier. This will be (for real this

~ Kate Stewart [2020-05-07 03:37 +0200]: Same goes for GPL-2.0 and the like. That's understandable, and a reasonable workflow. Is there any schedule for the completion of the addition of

Kernel community still recognizes GPL-2.0+ as valid, although we've deprecated it. The header quoted is fine. The conventions are documented in the kernel community trees, and the intention is when

My understanding from being on the linux-spdx mailing list is that this is intentionally tolerated for existing SPDX-License-Identifier notices because it was correct SPDX syntax under the earlier

wrote: No. Look again: GPL-2.0+ is right at the bottom of the list under "Deprecated Licence Identifiers". James

I just got this note from one of my developers. Is he correct? Should we or someone send a patch to Linux project? ..m

Hello spdx-legal list, In light of the upcoming updates to the SPDX website hosting, we are pushing back the release date for the 3.9 license list by two weeks. We are now targeting the release for

hello, I downloaded the 3.8.2 release from python.org and this only seems to be true for one variant of the license text that is used in the PC version of Python:

Hi all, I'm Mary, long time lurker. I searched the wiki, the meeting minutes, and messages, but I couldn't find an answer to my question. Sorry if it is a repeat. My problem is not with the ancient

Thanks, Steve and Kyle. The link to the draft is particularly helpful. I don't want to rehash the many, many discussions about which licenses should be included in the official list; suffice to say,

Hi Richard, Here are some minutes from a previous review mentioning a potential long term solution for non-listed exceptions:

Hi Richard, Thanks for this -- all good points and I agree, in the example you gave I'd represent it in the way you described. As an FYI, regarding custom exceptions (and agreed that the example you

If you have a standard license text (that maps to one of the SPDX license identifiers) coupled with some additional nonstandardized terms, which are not captured by anything in the exceptions

Hello Andrew, Thanks for submitting these three for consideration. If you're available to join today, you're of course welcome, though today's discussion will be focusing on finalizing the items for