Hi All, Wind River just released SPDX 1.2 support for its free SPDX file creation cloud server. Here is what’s new: · Supports newly released SPDX 1.2 format. · Improved

Hi All! Thanks to Paul Madick for running the last legal team meeting while I was gone. Meeting minutes have been posted here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-10-24 For tomorrow's

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 14:39 (EST) on Tuesday: ... Yes, but, *only* for future licenses published by Affero, Inc. Affero, Inc. *had* to publish the AGPLv2 if AGPLv1 folks wanted a transition path

Hi Bob, Yes, this is an issue! In looking more closely at the Ruby license, we also realized that the text has varied over the years as well. (see some of discussion captured here:

Hi Bob, In short, the answer is that there are actually three different variations of Artistic 1.0, as follows: - the one on OSI site with clause 8 - the one on OSI site without clause 8 - the one on

I added some notes as well, but I think I colored outside the green lines… :) I also added a column regarding the short identifiers to indicate when they are different from Fedora's. This is a

Hi Legal Group, I added a few comments on the latest green-highlighted group on the Fedora list. These are pretty obscure! Looking forward to other comments. Regards, Dennis Clark nexB, Inc.

I am good without an AGPLv2 on the SPDX list. I have never seen it in the wild. FYI, I did checked the wayback machine, and AGPLv2 has been on the Affero site since 2007. Tom Tom Incorvia;

Hey Bradley, just sorting through emails and wanted to make sure we came to some consensus on this. If I understand correctly then, there really isn't a need for a short identifier for AGPLv2

Michel, >>> No: Now open sources are coming with an increasing set of dependencies I agree. Can you select one example and send me the package to work through? It could serve as a useful

Mark, Yes and no is my answer Yes Jboss can be considered as a platform No: Now open sources are coming with an increasing set of dependencies Look at spring, swan, perl (small snapshop of our

Michel, >>> If I take the example of JBoss in our FOSS DB you get the following (see below) It may be more helpful to view JBoss as a platform like Android or Linux rather than a utility like

Coarse level compliance is an interesting term. It suggests a level of compliance quality where one chooses to comply with some applicable licenses but not others. For example, saying the Android

<michel.ruffin@...> wrote: Michel: My 2 cents, I would possibly express this either: * as lplg-2.1+ {mit bsd-3-clause and a long list of licenses .... } using my 'little

Exactly! The intent when I wrote down an example starting with "I think" is to show where such a syntax could capture eventual interpretations that a user/adopter of SDPX would want to express. I am

Mark, I do not criticize the boolean system I just want to point out that we are mostly dealing with package level system If I take the example of JBoss in our FOSS DB you get the following (see

Guten Tag Wolfgang! and thanks for your feedback. You are absolutely right there and being a programmer I had hesitated a little about the implications then, and thought that it would be OK to forego

Dear Philippe Ombredanne, In message <CAOFm3uEDjBvgyWLTsp0xMXe1vRefoMaAPEnzKhekdx6+-xVohg@...> you wrote: Thanks - I mostly like this, but I would like to suggest a few inor changes to

Michel, You make some good points which I would like to build upon for the upcoming discussion. >>> Note that it is quite frequent to find SW which is (GPL and LGPL): the standalone code is

Hi Philippe, This is the main thesis that is driving this breakout discussion. Thank you for the extensive list of examples and proposals. They represent the types of scenarios we need to test the