One more input on this discussion - I've been collaborating with OSI on a more automated way of keeping the SPDX and OSI license lists in sync. This issue tracks the remaining items that need

Not speaking for SPDX or OSI: To some degree this is a known problem, and possibly viewable as not a problem in some cases. Some issues I see embodied in your list: 1. In some cases licenses

Max, All of what you have done here was already done years ago (~2011, mostly by me, working with various OSI members at that time) in terms of "matching" up the OSI list and is

Dear all, In my organisation, we define all licenses approved by OSI as valid Open Source licenses. However, we also increasingly rely on SPDX and therefore also its license list. Recently, we

Hi all, Just a reminder of our regular legal team meeting at 9am Pacific time. We'll look at some of the open issues and discuss how to best tackle the many new

On 11/15/22 12:34 PM, Luis Villa wrote: JL: to be clear, this proposal is about an improved way to capture "exceptions" that are NOT on the SPDX License List, so relevant to the

Hi Luis, While I'm barely getting my head around the many complications related to the reality of AI models and data, let alone the related licensing issues... Let

Note that this has gone beyond the hypothetical; for some reason they put the text behind a weird GitHub process-wall so I have not read the text nor seen what they do to make the information

Hello all, The version 3.19 release of the license list is now tagged and live at https://spdx.org/licenses. 5 new licenses / exceptions were added to the list: 1. checkmk 2. FSFULLRWD 3.

Hi all, As per our license review protocol, we need 3 SPDX-legal team members to agree to add a license (not counting the submitter). Can we get more people to weigh in on

Hi all, We're cancelling the SPDX legal team call for tomorrow, Nov. 24 due to the US holiday. Looking forward to picking up again in December. If you have some spare time and just can't get enough

Hi Dick, SPDX 2.3 should be supported with yesterday’s update to the online tools. I just verified this with one of the example SPDX files. If you could try again. If it doesn’t work,

Hi all, In light of our discussion on our last call about how to make it easier and faster to get licenses reviewed (and adhere to our 3 “votes” from spdx-legal members for a license to be

Thanks for the links, Richard. I'll try to follow up there though of course welcome further discussion here as well.

The SPDX online tools should now be available. The online tools have been updated to version 1.0.9. There were several fixes and updates – I’ll update the release information in the SPDX online

Just FYI – I’m planning to update the software at tools.spdx.org within the next hour or so (around 9AM Pacific time), so the site will be down for just a few minutes if all goes well. Gary

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 3:01 PM Luis Villa <luis@...> wrote: [...] > (1) Would SPDX be an appropriate mechanism for representing that opt-out clause in a machine-readable way, eg via a short

Hi, all- [Starting here, though I realize SPDX cannot be a complete answer to this problem. Also not on spdx-ai because it isn't about AI models/data, but happy to move discussion or cc if that makes

Hi all, We have our regular meeting Thursday at noon Eastern time. The US set back the clocks this past weekend, so we should be back to the usual time intervals. As we move into the next release

Hi all, I deviated slightly from the plan as discussed at our last call regarding updating the FAQs. I went ahead and made a PR here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/1692 as working in