Have been posted here: http://spdx.org/wiki/legal-team-meeting-minutes-2012-07-11 (sorry for the minimalist style – had a snafu and lost minutes three-quarters through the call :( A spreadsheet

8am PST / 11am EST Dial-in: 1.866.740.1260 Access code: 2404545 AGENDA: 1) discuss recent posts on mailing list, in particular – out reach to community/organizations with license lists 2) LinuxCon

Michael J Herzog wrote at 12:55 (EDT) on Saturday: And, just in case anyone missed the more recent change, the project has been (aptly) renamed copyleft.next, since it is not officially a

Just in case anybody missed this... http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/the-next-gpl-why-its-being-shaped-github-197025 -- Michael J. Herzog +1 650 380 0680 |

All, We have reserved a room for Tuesday August the 28th at LinuxCon. This is the day before the conference starts. Right now we are trying to get a rough headcount of who will be there and would

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> wrote: I've nevertheless offered my help and offer it again, to figure out how to do this for GCC. It's probably a good test case. Bradley:

dmg wrote at 13:17 (EDT) on Sunday: I apologize if my analogy bothered you. I'm completely serious, and my entire point here is to raise realistic scenarios (e.g., GCC) about where SPDX might be

Come on Bradley. Please be realistic/serious or people will stop responding to your emails labeling you as a troll (and perhaps even remove you from this list--disclaimer I am just another

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 16:28 (EDT) on Friday: ... and one can create a Gödel number or a Turing Machine tape that can compute any function that's computable, but to create a non-trivial one by hand

NO! That is not what Phil meant. There is no judgment implied by "standard" or "non-standard" (but the fact that a judgement could be implicated it is exactly why I lobbied early on to lose that

(I fully support Phil's previous response in terms of how to use the various mailing lists; he has done a great job of moderating that. It is GREAT to see all this interest and discussion, regardless

Great, Bradley. When I find someone who will *do* that work, we will definitely ask for you input! - Jilayne _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing

<peter.williams@...> wrote: Agreed. In this general forum we've heard that the existing SPDX license list approach does not meet the needs of Linux distributions (in the case I raised,

Peter, Yes it is. My point is to get it off the general list which is not for working discussions. You are welcome to include the tech team list on the discussion (which I can't do as I am not on the

Is that really the best choice? This issue seems to be cross functional issue in that it concerns both the license list and the technical details of representing license data in SPDX files (and in the

Philip Odence wrote at 08:32 (EDT): I'm aware of that. My point was that presumably for the most commonly used programs, an SPDX file author wouldn't have to do this extra work. Isn't it SPDX's

Polite request: Could we shift this discussion off of the General Meeting list and onto the Legal Team list only? TThis is GREAT discussion for the legal team. This is not a big problem, but I want to

Bradley, See spec http://www.spdx.org/system/files/spdx-1.0.pdf on pages 23-24. There's a section in an SPDX file called Other Licensing Information Detected to handle licenses not on the standard

As long as the licenses are - Carefully named and vetted for exact license text - Somewhat broadly applicable (“somewhat broadly” is fuzzy, but we do want the list to

FWIW, one of our FOSSology contributors (thank you Camille) put together a spreadsheet (HarmonisationLicenseIDs.ods) highlighting the differences between the fossology license list and the SPDX