Hi all, just a quick reminder that the SPDX Legal Team call will be starting shortly. We'll be focusing on the following topics: * quick look at #1603 - x11vnc-openssl-exception * discuss release

Jilayne -- yes, I'd be open to a lighter-weight or streamlined approach to approving licenses submitted from use in distros such as Debian and Fedora. In these cases we have greater confidence that

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

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

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

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

Where does that group live?

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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