What makes you think they don't apply? If you have to reproduce the notice, the terms apply. You can't just take code and change the license without the permission of the copyright holders/owners/etc.

I have spent a lot of time contemplating the question, but want to confirm I'm thinking about the same thing: Are you talking about the nature of open source requiring (such as in a requirements.txt)

Are you allowed to do that without it becoming an AND? You can't just change the terms w/o permission like that I'd imagine... And I'm not sure how it would generalize... Warner

Hi McCoy! I’m moving the SPDX-general list to BCC and replying to SPDX-legal as that is the right place for this discussion. Where is this question coming up in terms of context? That is, are you

Greetings SPDX tech and legal teams, A reminder we are continuing the license namespace policy discussions on this Friday, July 1, 2022, at the same time as the prior meetings (15:00 UTC, 11AM

Greetings all, Below is information on the follow-up meetings regarding license namespaces. Please mark your calendars if you are interested in attending – I will not be sending out any

Dear Karsten, This would make the perfect libretto for a foss-themed opera! Best wishes, Sebastian

Good one for a Friday afternoon! From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Karsten Klein <karsten.klein@...> Date: Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:22 PM To: SPDX-legal <Spdx-legal@...>,

Hi all, did you know: „the and any this you license software for that not use with may code such agreement other terms under are rights work your all from shall source including copyright provided

Hi Sebastian, Sorry - I've been negligent at sending out the follow-up meeting information. I missed the end of last week's call, but I believe it was decided to not have a call this week due to the

Dear all, I thought there was supposed to be a Namespace Proposal meeting at this time today, but I've joined the video call and there are only a couple of others here. Best wishes, Sebastian

Hi all, With a conference going on and end of quarter, we’ll skip our call this week. Please have a look at any open GitHub issues in the meantime! Jilayne Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity

For three reasons: 1) efficiency - a 16 bit integer is sufficient to identify 65,000 licenses. CBOR uses variable-length encoding of integers (major type 0), and even in JSON a number (e.g. 942 -

[JL]: No, you are mistaken. I am not looking for a way to use LicenseRef-, because LicenseRef- uses "a different technical mechanism" for different licenses. Instead of jumping to the technical

(removing general mailing list and adding spdx-tech) David, A few clarifications below: Btw, you are not a member of the spdx-legal mailing list, so these emails keep bouncing. Could you please join

All, I strongly support Gary's approach of identifying requirements first, then identifying and selecting from technical solutions that meet all requirements. The requirements are: * The SPDX legal

I wanted to clarify Philippe’s comment on how the SPDX-legal team chooses ids (which is generally documented here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-fields.md ) as

Just a reminder, we will be continuing the License Namespace discussion this Friday (likely today by the time you get this email) at 15:00 UTC/8AM Pacific at the coordinates below:

Dear David: You are not interfering at all... and I found your reply and insights super useful. I do not know your background, but it is clear that you have experience in this domain. So please do

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