Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification

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

By Warner Losh · #3166 ·

Re: [spdx] Specific SPDX identifier question I didn't see addressed in the specification

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

By J Lovejoy · #3165 ·

Reminder - meeting Friday on License Namespaces policy

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

By Steve Winslow · #3164 ·

Joint SPDX Tech / Legal call - namespaces

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

By Gary O'Neall · #3163 ·

Re: Fun with licenses

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

By Sebastian Crane · #3162 ·

Re: Fun with licenses

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@...>,

By Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> · #3161 ·

Fun with licenses

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

By Karsten Klein · #3160 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] No Namespace proposal meeting today?

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

By Gary O'Neall · #3159 ·

No Namespace proposal meeting today?

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

By Sebastian Crane · #3158 ·

No legal team meeting June 23

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

By J Lovejoy · #3157 ·

Re: License Identification

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 -

By David Kemp · #3156 ·

Re: License Identification

[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

By David Kemp · #3155 ·

Re: License Identification

(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

By J Lovejoy · #3154 ·

License Identification

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

By David Kemp <dk190a@...> · #3153 ·

Re: Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

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

By J Lovejoy · #3152 ·

FW: Minutes and follow-up from today's joint tech/legal call on namespaces

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:

By Gary O'Neall · #3151 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

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

By Philippe Ombredanne · #3150 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

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

By Philippe Ombredanne · #3149 ·

Minutes and follow-up from today's joint tech/legal call on namespaces

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

By Gary O'Neall · #3148 ·

Re: Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

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

By Steve Winslow · #3147 ·

241 - 260 of 3406

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms