Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Hello SPDX Legal, Please find below a request for a license addition to the SPDX License list. The information below follows the requirements stated in theSPDX License List: Process for

By Tom Incorvia · #386 ·

Re: Possible reasons new licenses aren't submitted

It already did actually say this, but the wording was a bit awkward and the email address was not hyper-linked, so I have fixed both. Jilayne >

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #385 ·

Re: Possible reasons new licenses aren't submitted

I wrote: Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 13:04 (PDT) on Friday: Can you show me examples of software packages that use GPLv2-only-with-GCC-Exception? I'm amazed to learn that there's a package that uses it.

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #384 ·

Re: Possible reasons new licenses aren't submitted (was Re: Minutes from July 12 SPDX General Meeting)

If there is no url, then there is no url - just state this. However, in this scenario, I would simply include the two you mention above. The field need not have only one url (e.g. For licenses that

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #383 ·

Possible reasons new licenses aren't submitted (was Re: Minutes from July 12 SPDX General Meeting)

Philip Odence wrote at 11:52 (EDT) on Thursday: FWIW, I looked at this possibility briefly. Upon reading http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added I came to the

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #382 ·

Re: legal call tomorrow morning

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 19:04 (EDT) on Tuesday: Given that I was a heavy poster on these threads referenced in the agenda above, I apologize for not being there for the meeting today. I am currently

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #381 ·

meeting minutes from today's call

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

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #380 ·

legal call tomorrow morning

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

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #379 ·

Copyleft.next (was Re: GPL.NEXT)

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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #378 ·

GPL.NEXT

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 |

By Michael J Herzog · #377 ·

Meeing room at LinuxCon 2012 available for SPDX

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

By Manbeck, Jack · #376 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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:

By Philippe Ombredanne · #375 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #374 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By dmg · #373 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #372 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #371 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

(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

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #370 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #369 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

<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,

By Peter Bigot <bigotp@...> · #368 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Philip Odence · #367 ·

3021 - 3040 of 3406

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms