Sebastian, this is awesome! I did have the same reaction as Alexios. I think we'll want to tweak the wording, to clarify the process -- e.g. that we've approved it to add, but that it'll still need

Nice automation work, Sebastian! I'm probably missing something, but... The review and the labeling as "accepted" is happening on the issue where someone submits a new license. In order to have "the

Looks like a good message.  If there's a page that shows the schedule for the next release that we can point the submitter at, that might give submitters more of an idea of when to expect the release

Dear all, I have good news! I've been able to create a CI workflow which responds to accepted license requests on GitHub automatically, letting everyone know that the license won't be visible on the

Hi Richard, We have a list of "equivalent words" which was created early on to accommodate different spellings for the same words, e.g., license v. licence - see

In Fedora a license has been submitted for review that seems to match HPND-sell-variant except that the word "appears" in HPND-sell-variant is "appear" in this

Hi all, As per our “documentation release” - we are aiming to review licenses that don’t need legal discussion via Github issues. As per our guidance on license review, if "3 SPDX-legal team

For what it's worth, looks like someone tried to come up with something along these lines, and called it the Worldwide Public Domain Dedication https://wpdd.info/wpdd.html Looks to be based on CC0,

really, McCoy, you are not going to suggest https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause-Patent.html ?!? Don’t be coy now… :) (McCoy drafted that license, for those who are not aware.) J. > > > >

It's interesting that you mention CC0, as it has recently been decided that CC0 is no longer suitable for Fedora code packages due to its explicit non-grant of patent licences. I imagine other

Dear Russ, The points you make are very pertinent indeed. I think that statements of the third type should probably be included in the SPDX License List, as they are usually very distinctive and

This was for OpenEmbedded-Core, there will be other issues in other layers which we'll no doubt hit as other they adopt the identifiers but it at least let us resolve things for our

"J Lovejoy" <opensource@...> writes: I think it would be useful to understand the split between three classes of things that I suspect SPDX will want to treat differently: * A pure statement

Hi Warner, McCoy, You both raise some good points which has made me realized I should clarify this topic a bit: First, yes, some "public domain dedications" or things

Thanks Richard, that's interesting. I'm really surprised Yocto only ran into one example of this kind of thing though! On 8/16/22 4:01 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

I’m not sure SPDX makes qualitative assessments of licenses or statements (nor should it, since practically every license does have some degree of ambiguity). So a PD dedication that is

I was using beerware as an example to ask the question: what separates it from PD, especially with the public domain dedications that try to work around EU law in different ways. Is it the grant of

There is an obligation in there (“as long as you retain this notice”) so it really is a license not a PD dedication (if something is PD, it comes with no obligations). Plus, beerware is already

On a related question, there's several licenses that are close to the public domain. Eg: "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42): <phk@...> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you can do