Cross posting again to the spdx tech list. Fozzbazar one is no longer used. Jack

We tried to discuss this for a bit on the call today, but realized more info was really needed to have a meaningful discussion. Perhaps Guillaume or Daniel could flesh out a use case scenario, as

Meeting minutes from today have been posted here: http://spdx.org/wiki/legal-team-meeting-minutes-2013-03-14 A few action items for the team to do prior to next meeting: 1) we had finished up the

Dear All: Sorry this is last minute, but attached isthe revised draft of the License Inclusion List (in Word in ODF formats). I have also included a Word redline version. Because you may not be

Forgot something – revised agenda here, disregard previous email :) The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found open source software licenses for the purposes of being able to easily and

1) update on Collab Summit schedule 2) website update & feedback on nav naming: on the new website design there will be a high level link to the LL with a few drop-down items. I need some feedback

OK I split the thread and focus on the third bullet. A short copy paste from the thread regarding this point (see original thread for full comments) - My first suggestion was to reserve "M-*" not

Ok, so let me see if I can sum up the issues that have been brought up on this thread… 1) Scott asks if anyone has seen this license 2) should we add it to list? 3) possible need for allowing other

Yes, added. As for the previous versions – even the Code Project website itself doesn't have the text of those, but just a note explaining the changes, which sound minor (see below). We can

Back to a point that Phlippe made earlier, while we are not really taking sides, I certainly do not think SPDX should be party to encouraging license proliferation. It would probably make sense for us

Thanks Zak! Hi Jilayne, This appears to meet all of the criteria. Would you please put on the agenda for the next legal teleconference? As Zak notes, there is a CPOL 1.00 and 1.01, but

Dear SPDX-Legal, I attended an SPDX-Legal call for the first time last week and I look forward to attending further meetings and making contributions to the group. In compliance with the process for

I think that the best way to implement this in the future is to be able to specify domains in the identifiers. Something like ninka.bsd3, fossology.afossolyname, spdx.bsd3 and default the domains to

The SPDX Legal Team will be have a face-to-face meeting Tuesday afternoon at the Linux Collab Summit in San Francisco. (exact time, TBD) We will endeavor to finish work on the License Matching

I reckon there is a value in having a comprehensive and universal list of licenses, but I sincerely doubt this is something that should in the SPDX list as it is today, for the reasons I mentioned in

It seems this is part of this use case http://spdx.org/wiki/license-list-extension Does [OK] mean it will supported by SPDX 2.0 ? If yes, I guess that it means that implementation for SPDX 2.0 will

<tom.incorvia@...> wrote: This is an interesting case. I am not sure that we should support as broad a list as possible. The current SPDX spec has support for direct reference (LicenseRef)

I fully agree on this, all licenses should be on the list (including Licenses such as Oracle Binary License). A prefix to identify local/private maintained licenses would be great. è use one license

Hi Guillaume and SPDX Legal, I believe that we will be best served by having as broad a license list as possible, and to have every license on the list be supported. If the Leptonica license

Guillaume, We will be putting out a more formal announcement with details this week, but yes, there will be a fair amount of SPDX activity including fact to face at the Collaboration Summit starting