Hi all, Just a last minute reminder of our regular call today at the top of the hour. As mentioned previously, for the next release cycle (through end of Sept) we are going to focus on updating and

I've thought some more about certain unintended problems some of us were previously discussing regarding the use of SPDX-License-Identifier: in source files. In particular it's occurred to me that the

I hope you are all ready for the upcoming pains in the next few years. Transitioning Fedora to SPDX is not going to be a happy time for a little while, since there's a huge impedance mismatch between

Nice. This certainly makes it easy to map from Fedora to SPDX IDs! SPDX license identifiers have emerged as a standard Woo hoo! From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve

Hi all, On our call a few days ago, Steve raised the idea of using the next release to JUST focus on documentation improvements. There haven’t been a ton of new license requests and some of the

Hi all, I just went through all the issue in terms of what we can likely get in for the 3.18 release. Seems like most issues are already assigned to Steve or I :) Could someone pick up this one and

Jilayne, this is awesome news -- thanks for passing it along! Looking forward to us working with the Fedora community to support them adding SPDX license IDs across the distro. Steve

Hot off the press! Link to blog post of this here:https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/important-changes-to-software-license-information-in-fedora-packages-spdx-and-more/

Hi all, Just a quick reminder that the SPDX-legal call will be at the top of the hour. We'll focus on what tasks can be completed for the next release and, if

Greetings all, The SPDX spec version 2.3 is now available for review at https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3-RC1/. A summary of the changes can be found in the SPEC Annex I. If you

Hi Max, Given the evolution of the SPDX Specification format(s) - that is, it was mainly in .pdf form for most of the past versions, I’d say that if you want to refer to a specific version, I’d

~ J Lovejoy [2022-07-26 06:00 +0200]: Interesting question! I, too, am a bit confused of the various URLs. Asked the other way round: are there also stable links for older versions, e.g. a permalink

(cross-posting to tech and legal team, as I suspect others may be interested) Hi SPDX-tech team, I just wanted to confirm my understanding of the various formats we

I feel like what some projects might find useful is something

Thanks Sebastian - since we haven't finished the review of the version 2.3, I think there is still time. Best regards, Gary

Dear Gary, I've made a pull request for this :) Not sure whether it'll make 2.3 though - has the final draft been released yet? https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/748 Best wishes, Sebastian

I've always assumed the AND and OR operators to be commutative and the SPDX Java tools take full advantage of the commutative properties when comparing license expressions. I would welcome a pull

Each of the individual files retains the original copyright and license, as the original author required. You are required to still abide by the terms in those files (but each individual grant is not

The order of operations is a different issue, I think. I guess the SPDX spec assumes, as you say, that commutativity of AND and OR is implicit (like counterpart operations in propositional logic),

Rather than getting into further debates about what various licenses do and don't require, or for that matter what copyright law does or doesn't require, I guess I'd turn back to the ath5k example.