Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: for discussion: when can people start using short ids?

I'd mostly echo Gary's comments here. #1 is the option that enables someone to be sure that the ID they're using should validate with then-current tooling. #2 is workable for folks who don't care

By Steve Winslow · #3246 ·

Re: AI licenses

Hi David, Off top of head, I’m not sure if any AI-specific license have been submitted in the past but one of the RAIL licenses has just been submitted recently. It had not been reviewed yet but any

By J Lovejoy · #3245 ·

Re: AI licenses

Hi David, Good timing: the BigScience Open RAIL-M License was just submitted for consideration a few days ago. [1] The license inclusion principles [2] contemplate that licenses to be added to the

By Steve Winslow · #3244 ·

Re: AI licenses

https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx-ai has the mailing list for those interested in subscribing. Group meets once a week on Wednesday afternoons. I've also added Gopi explicitly to this thread, as he is a

By Kate Stewart · #3243 ·

Re: AI licenses

Where does that group live?

By Luis Villa · #3242 ·

Re: AI licenses

Hi David, In the AI/ML special interest group, we're analyzing how to rep the AI apps & datasets using SPDX, so we'll probably need to head in that direction over time. One of the regulars in

By Kate Stewart · #3241 ·

AI licenses

Just out of curiosity, has SPDX been requested to or considered assigning identifiers to artificial intelligence software licenses? I ran across the Stable Diffusion README, which contains the

By David Kemp · #3240 ·

Re: for discussion: when can people start using short ids?

Just out of curiosity - why is the release cycle for new licenses quarterly? Is there significant work in a release of new licenses (assuming that this isn't tied to other more material updates like

By Ria Schalnat (HPE) · #3239 ·

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

Hi Jilayne, once in a while I come back with my yet informal proposal to treat new licenses in two stages: Stage 1 - Registration Register a license text providing a unique name and short id. (New)

By Karsten Klein · #3238 ·

Re: for discussion: when can people start using short ids?

My vote is for #1 - The SPDX tools only uses the released license lists. If someone uses an ID before it is released, it may not pass validation. I'm OK with #2 with the understanding that other

By Gary O'Neall · #3237 ·

for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

Hi all, I just made a new issue to capture this, but wanted to raise it here for broader discussion. If we say that all OSI-approved are included on the SPDX License List, would we want to extend

By J Lovejoy · #3236 ·

for discussion: when can people start using short ids?

Hi all, From our last call, the subject of 'when can people start using short ids? ‘ came up. This has been asked before on individual license submissions and we have answered informally, but it

By J Lovejoy · #3235 ·

Re: stable spec URLs

Hi again, Now that 2.3 is out, this question is more pertinent: Note, if I want to link to a specific part of the SPDX spec, I can find it via the HTML format, for

By J Lovejoy · #3234 ·

New Change Proposal process

Dear SPDX community, As mentioned on a couple of the general calls some time ago, the Steering Committee has been working on a Change Proposal template and process to facilitate communication,

By J Lovejoy · #3233 ·

Re: updates to license submission tool

I think this is a good idea. The vast majority of FOSS licenses, licenses already on the SPDX list (FOSS or otherwise), and licenses likely to be added to the SPDX license list in the future, will

By Richard Fontana · #3232 ·

updates to license submission tool

Hi all, As per our discussion on our call going through updates to the online license submission tool, I was going to make an issue summarizing the proposed changes. Instead, I got inspired that I

By J Lovejoy · #3231 ·

Re: Automatically responding to accepted additions to the SPDX License List

Hi Sebastian, Ah, so the script would run and thus, the message appear when the issue is close (not when the 'accepted' label is added). This comment would essentially be like

By J Lovejoy · #3230 ·

Re: Automatically responding to accepted additions to the SPDX License List

Dear Alexios, Thanks for your feedback! My understanding of the new license addition process was that the issue where the addition was requested would only be closed after the associated PR was

By Sebastian Crane · #3229 ·

Re: Automatically responding to accepted additions to the SPDX License List

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

By Steve Winslow · #3228 ·

Re: Automatically responding to accepted additions to the SPDX License List

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

By Alexios Zavras · #3227 ·

161 - 180 of 3406

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms