Hi David: Thank you for your detailed feedback. See some comments inline below: On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 12:16 AM David Kemp <dk190a@...> wrote: I am not sure I read you correctly but if are

Greetings SPDX Tech and Legal teams, Good discussion today, we were able to close on the problem statements and make progress on the next steps and namespace policies. Minutes from today’s

Hi Gary, thanks for all of the above. Just one comment for folks on the list of agenda items -- for items 2 and 3, I think this may have accidentally copied over the same problem statement as item

Here is an example license list: https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/ Regards, Dennis Clark

Greetings SPDX tech and legal teams, A reminder we are continuing the license namespace discussions tomorrow, Friday, 10 June 2022, at the same time (15:00 UTC, 8AM Pacific). We will be using

Hi all, We have our 2nd Thursday of the month meeting today in about 45' (at noon US eastern time). I think we ought to get back to some day-to-day items in terms of

Steve captures my same reactions well. From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow <swinslow@...> Date: Friday, June 3, 2022 at 6:16 PM To: Ria Schalnat (HPE)

Hi Sebastian, thanks for this — this is an interesting proposal! I want to give it some more thought, but here are a couple initial reactions: For MATCHES-LICENSE, I gather the idea is that this is

Dear Ria, Indeed, LEGALLY_EQUIVALENT_TO would express a legal interpretation made by the SPDX document productor (which could be the vendor of the software or a third party). Whether or not this is

Sebastien, LEGALLY-EQUIVALENT-TO bothers me since "the producer of the SPDX document containing such a Relationship has made the claim that they believe the two to be legally equivalent" - if I

Dear all, On our joint SPDX Legal/Tech meeting today, one of the use-cases that was discussed was No.6: "issue of capturing variants of licenses which match the same listed license per the matching

Greetings SPDX tech and legal team members, Thanks to all the attendees of today’s joint tech / legal call where we discussed the namespace proposals. I just created a pull request with the

Greetings SPDX Legal and Tech teams, Below is a more detailed agenda for our joint call this Friday 8AM Pacific time (see the forwarded message below for the meeting coordinates). To make the

Attached is a .ics calendar file for the upcoming meeting. Gary

Greetings SPDX Tech and Legal Teams, The follow-up meeting to discuss license related issues and requests for the SPDX Specification version 2.3 will be this Friday at 15:00 UTC (8AM Pacific

Greeting Jilayne, SPDX Legal and SPDX tech teams, I’ll create a meeting invite early next week to continue the namespace discussions. It will be a separate meeting from the tech call since

Dear team(s), was great hearing you again on the call yesterday. I see there is renewed interest in this topic and I dearly hope we can push it forward to whatever conclusion, so REUSE can

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, Given that the tech team spent most of the Tuesday meeting discussing the namespace proposal and we spent the entire legal team doing the same, I’m going to simply

(responding via email so I can add spdx-legal mailing list) As a reminder of the original intent for the SPDX License List was to create a shorthand, reliable way to refer to licenses such that an

(responding via email so I can add spdx-legal mailing list; not sure what mess this will make in Github, so apologies in advance) On 5/26/22 12:00 AM, Alexios Zavras (zvr)