Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: [spdx-tech] capitalization rules for SPDX license ids and operators

Hi Jilayne, You can refresh your memory on the discussions (2015-2020) by readinghttps://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/63😉 I still like my example from that thread: Do we really want to

By Alexios Zavras · #2966 ·

Re: capitalization rules for SPDX license ids and operators

I think I may have received this email in error. -- James L. Royer 275 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 E: jroyer6308@... | P: (415) 685-7030

By jroyer6308@... · #2965 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

Dear Jilayne, Things have been moving really quickly on this, so I think I ought to give some background! I believe this to be a complete summary, though of course I don't know of the content of the

By Sebastian Crane · #2964 ·

capitalization rules for SPDX license ids and operators

Hi Legal, Tech teams, I just want to clarify my understanding of capitalization sensitivity for SPDX license ids and license expression operators: Appendix IV states:

By J Lovejoy · #2963 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

Quoting Max Mehl (2021-07-28 17:56:41) Seems to me that these views are not contradictory but describes different matters: * SPDX lingo describes which licensing has been granted * REUSE wants to

By Jonas Smedegaard · #2962 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

~ J Lovejoy [2021-07-28 17:34 +0200]: From my understanding, they did not want to treat LGPL-3.0 as an exception to GPL-3.0. So they turned down "GPL-3.0* WITH LGPL-3.0*". "GPL-3.0 AND LGPL-3.0" as

By Max Mehl · #2961 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

Hi Max On 7/28/21 9:08 AM, Max Mehl wrote: to clarify: the FSF turned down GPL-3.0* WITH LGPL-3.0* or GPL-3.0* AND LGPL-3.0* (as you understand it, not asking you to

By J Lovejoy · #2960 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

I meant to add: our next legal call is Thursday, Aug 5th at 10am mountain time. Happy to dedicate some time then to this topic, if a live-discussion would help and all interested

By J Lovejoy · #2959 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

Hi Jilayne, (Taking out -tech as per earlier request) ~ J Lovejoy [2021-07-28 16:36 +0200]: Yes, that was a suggestion made by Matija in the discussion we've had. It was turned down by FSF. We

By Max Mehl · #2958 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

This is a problem. We already went down this road with having back-and-forth conversations with FSF (by way of Richard Stallman and John Sullivan) in 2018 when Richard Stallman wanted us to change the

By J Lovejoy · #2957 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

Hi Max, Do I understand correctly that FSF still doesn't think of LGPL-3.0 as an exception to GPL-3.0 (even though functionally and structurally it is) and thus wants us all now

By J Lovejoy · #2956 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

By Karsten Klein · #2955 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

~ Alexios Zavras [2021-07-28 13:09 +0200]: OK, sorry for including them then. They added this as an additional format on the lgpl page

By Max Mehl · #2954 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

I think this has nothing to do with spdx-tech and it's probably best addressed by opening a ticket at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues. I think we could have the LGPL-3.0* texts be the

By Alexios Zavras · #2953 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

Hi Philippe, (I mistyped the spdx-tech address, fixed here) ~ Philippe Ombredanne [2021-07-28 12:04 +0200]: The ticket in the reuse-tool is public, the discussions with FSF were private with John

By Max Mehl · #2952 ·

Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

Hey Max, You wrote: Has this been discussed publicly? I think that you stated explicitly this is not a new license, just a clarification (optional one?) that providing both texts when referencing

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2951 ·

Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

Hi all, In the scope of REUSE we've noticed [^1] that just providing LPGL-3.0* – as downloaded from SPDX – in a repo does not suffice as it requires its mother license, GPL-3.0*. LGPL could be

By Max Mehl · #2950 ·

proposal for Fedora to start using SPDX identifiers

Hi SPDX-legal, I've been chatting to some of the Fedora folks about adopting the use of SPDX license identifiers in its package spec files. I just posted a comment/ proposal to

By J Lovejoy · #2949 ·

meeting today

Hi all, We have our regular meeting today at 10am mountain time via https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting We will focus on what can be wrapped up for the 3.14 release at the end of this

By J Lovejoy · #2948 ·

Invitation: SPDX legal team meeting - 2021 updated @ Every 2 weeks from 12pm to 1pm on Thursday from Thu Jun 10 to Sat Jan 1, 2022 (EDT) (spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org)

You have been invited to the following event. SPDX legal team meeting - 2021 updated When Every 2 weeks from 12pm to 1pm on Thursday from Thu Jun 10 to Sat Jan 1, 2022 Eastern Time - New

By Steve Winslow · #2947 ·

441 - 460 of 3406

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms