You have been invited to the following event. SPDX Legal Team - 2nd Thursdays 2022 When Monthly from 12pm to 1pm on the second Thursday from Thu Feb 10 to Sat Dec 31 Eastern Time - New

Hello SPDX-legal list, On last week's Legal Team call, we agreed to switch the timing for team calls going forward, as discussed in this thread. So instead of alternating Thursdays, Legal Team calls

Hello all, The version 3.16 release of the license list is now tagged and live at https://spdx.org/licenses. 6 new licenses were added to the

Dear all, I'd like to give you a brief update on the data we provide around the {metæffekt} Universe (https://github.com/org-metaeffekt/metaeffekt-universe). We recently added the translations of

Hi Jilayne. Following up on today's legal team call, I added a comment to the related GH issue: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/issues/336 -- I'd like to help with this if my skills

I’d prefer this suggested ‘2nd and 4th Thursday’ meeting lineup. One vote from me. Christina

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