Hi Sebastian (and spdx-legal list), My turn to apologize for the slow reply here :) For the next legal team meeting, we'll stick with today's call at the usual time of noon Eastern, to avoid

Jilayne, I can help with this. I'll look over the notes you sent and let you know of any other questions I might have. Christina­ Sent with BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com)

Hi agan, I realized that I did not give any context in this email and, as we have quite a few new people on the legal team (yeah!), some context would be helpful. As you may or may not be aware, we

Hi all, We had an issue to update the “comments” field to be more prominent and specifically ask how the license meets the license inclusion guidelines -

Hi all, I’m posting this to both SPDX-legal and Fedora-legal. I have just finished doing a compare of all the “good” font licenses for Fedora with the SPDX License List. As a result, I have

~ Steve Winslow [2022-01-10 22:33 +0100]: Following up on Steve's proposal, I see many people agreeing on it, or at least shrugging. There has been a proposal by Alexios that would require a larger

Dear Steve, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you! I had thought it was rather convenient that each Thursday of the month had a different SPDX meeting; I know that some people might find it

Hi all, We have our regularly shielded legal team meeting at 9am Pacific time, Thursday. For our agenda: I’ll give an update on Fedora using SPDX identifiers and then have a look at any issues

<jaeger=jbb.de@...> wrote: I am not sure SPDX should get involved in influencing norms around license text inclusion, as I think it should be responding to the world as it is rather than

Dear Steve and list members, In my opinion it is a good idea to add the license text of the GPL-3.0 to the SPDX license information. The simple reason is that the text that pretends to be the

Thanks Alan, Max and Alexios for your thoughts. A couple of responses inline below: Even setting aside the use case that REUSE has raised here (reproducing license texts), there's another good reason

Thinking about it more generally, I think the issue stems from the assumption that “one license == one file”. I am not sure everyone should rely on this being true in all cases. For the SPDX

Steve, thank you so much for summarising the discussion, and the Legal Team for working on the topic. I regret that I did not join the call, but from what I see you basically got everything covered

I agree with this approach to use optional for the additional text. The ambiguity of what portion of the repo is covered by a license still exists regardless of this decision so it’s not something

Hi all, This is a follow-up from the discussion last summer at [1], based on the conversation during the Legal Team call this past week. Folks may want to re-read the (long) thread there, which has

Hi Sebastian, Thanks for checking on this. I think this is meant to be the schedule -- let me know if the invites aren't lining up correctly: * General Meeting: First Thursday of every month,

Dear Steve, Thanks for sending this out! Since the SPDX Outreach Team meetings had been moved in 2021 to fit in with the Legal and General meetings, I'm wondering if you could offer some

You have been invited to the following event. SPDX Legal Team meeting - 2022 When Every 2 weeks from 12pm to 1pm on Thursday from Thu Jan 6, 2022 to Sat Dec 31, 2022 Eastern Time - New

For those of you working today, we'll have a look at any open new license

Hi all, We have our regular legal team meeting today at 10am mountain time. Please have a look at the open issues, particularly the new license