Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: Question about license matching with SPDX templates

Thank you very much Steve. I’ll take a read through those resources and see how my code needs updating. Thanks again! Peter

By Peter Monks · #3266 ·

Re: Question about license matching with SPDX templates

Hi Peter, Thanks for raising this (and glad the license templates have been useful for you!) Your email is timely, as we actually discussed a related point (though not specific to CC-BY-4.0) during

By Steve Winslow · #3265 ·

Question about license matching with SPDX templates

G'day SPDX gurus, I'm working on a little license matching project [1] leveraging the (great!) SPDX text templates [2], but have noticed that some canonical license texts (e.g. CC-BY-4.0 [3]) don't

By Peter Monks · #3264 ·

[openchain] Linux Foundation – Building Trust in Software Supply Chains - How OpenChain by the Linux Foundation and other projects enable a trusted supply chain for open source software

Dear all, Today, I saw this plop into my inbox and thought that it would also be of interest to many of the SPDX Legal Team members. The Open Source Way is both an entertaining and educational

By Sebastian Crane · #3263 ·

call at top of the hour

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

By J Lovejoy · #3262 ·

Re: Introduction + question about CC0/confidentiality in SPDX 2.2

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

By J Lovejoy · #3261 ·

Won't be able to attend the Oct. 27th meeting

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

By Sebastian Crane · #3260 ·

Introduction + question about CC0/confidentiality in SPDX 2.2

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

By Haipola, Anna (Nokia - FI/Espoo) · #3259 ·

Change Proposal: ExceptionRef-

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

By J Lovejoy · #3258 ·

FAQs updates

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

By J Lovejoy · #3257 ·

meeting tomorrow (Thursday)

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

By J Lovejoy · #3256 ·

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the Monkey's Audio license "good"?

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!

By Neal Gompa · #3255 ·

Is the Monkey's Audio license "good"?

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

By Neal Gompa · #3254 ·

Legal Team call starting shortly

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

By Steve Winslow · #3253 ·

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

"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

By Russ Allbery · #3252 ·

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

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.

By J Lovejoy · #3251 ·

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

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

By Richard Fontana · #3250 ·

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

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

By Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> · #3249 ·

Legal Team call starting shortly

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

By Steve Winslow · #3248 ·

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

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

By Steve Winslow · #3247 ·

141 - 160 of 3406

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms