Hi folks, We have a regular SPDX-legal call at the top of the hour (noon, Eastern time) at https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting We'll have a look at whatever needs

Hi Anna, Welcome! You have interpreted the CC0-1.0 designation and comment regarding confidentiality correctly. (Note, it is now section 6.2 in version 2.3 of the

Dear all, I'm continuing with my travels tomorrow, and thus must unfortunately send my regrets for the SPDX Legal Team meeting. Hope to see you next month! Best wishes, Sebastian

Hi all, I have recently joined the SPDX legal mailing list and wanted to give a short introduction. My name is Anna Haipola and I am a Legal Counsel supporting the Open Source Program Office at

Please see our first Change Proposal submission from Alexios here: https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/blob/main/proposals/ExceptionRef.md This is a cross-team issue for tech and legal

Hi All, As per our discussion about collaboratively updating the License List FAQ, I created this Google doc, so multiple people can make changes/additions at the same time and review before we move

Hi all, We have our regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow at 10 am mountain time (aka 9am Pacific time / noon eastern time). As we draw close to the end of this release cycle, let’s take an honest

If at all possible, I'd like to have encoding too... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

Hello, I recently read a thread about someone asking about adding the Monkey's Audio codec to openSUSE and it having an odd license[1], and I was thinking of bringing this to Fedora as

Hi all, Sending a quick reminder that the SPDX Legal Team call will be starting shortly (at the top of the hour). We'll be focusing on the open documentation tasks for 3.19, to confirm on who is

"Steve Winslow" <swinslow@...> writes: Debian Developer here. The contrib archive area has the same license inclusion criteria as main. The distinguishing factor for contrib is that the

Thanks Richard, that’s helpful to point out! That and Steve’s point re: Debian Main makes me think we’d need to be somewhat specific for each distro that would trigger a lighter-weight review.

In contrast to Debian, Fedora does not have separate official/project-administered package repositories with different license inclusion criteria. Fedora has an explanation here that may be

All makes sense to me. Good idea. From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow <swinslow@...> Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 2:14 PM To: Karsten Klein

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