Oliver, As recorded at http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Consideration the SPDX legal working group has decided not to add the MSPPL to the

http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-03-06 Thanks to those on the call for the progress on the Fedora list! We have more to do, so let’s keep up the

FYI Tom Incorvia;tom.incorvia@...;O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015 This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

Hi all, For purposes of the meeting, let’s discuss some of the Fedora licenses we had tagged to add, but have questions - 3 below A few items that we tagged as “needs further review” or I had a

Thanks Phil, it would be really great Von: Philip Odence [mailto:podence@...] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:52 An: Fendt, Oliver; Tom Incorvia; Jilayne Lovejoy Cc: spdx-legal@... Betreff:

We have definitely gone beyond the OSI list and even beyond the OSI definition, but have tried, for now, to keep it to open source-like licenses. See

Hi Phil, thank you for the feedback. I understand that you want to focus right now on Open Source although the “Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 1.0” and following versions as well

Oliver, What you say makes conceptual sense and perhaps we might “go there” some day with the license list. At this point in order to do a good job with the resources we have we have decided to

Hi Jilayne, hi Tom Thank you for the feedback. I will try to make it to be in the telco. This is a very interesting discussion. From a practical point of view we need a standard to provide

Hi Jilayne, Thanks for pointing out the possible flexibility in the license list; Oliver, thanks again for taking the time to submit this license. I’ll be on the call today – great if you

Hi Oliver, Tom, Just to clarify on Tom’s points - the normal process is to review based on the OSD as a starting point, although for a license to be on the SPDX License List, it does not need to

Hello Fendt, I have been out of the SPDX mix for a while, but I believe that this license would not be considered an open source license based on theOSI criteria – this license is used by

Thanks for the reminder, Zac! yes, folks, please, please, please help out on this task!! it’s really quite easy! The inclination is to add any license on the Fedora “good” license list to the

Oliver, Your request has been added to http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Consideration Regards, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. dmclark@...

Quick reminder to the group: please submit your feedback on the matter of adding the below-identified licenses to the SPDX License List. Your timely submissions will allow us to discuss outstanding

On 05/03/2014 11:56 AM, J Lovejoy wrote: That's fine. "BSD-3-Clause" is a perfectly good answer. Thanks everyone for all the help! -- Mike Milinkovich

Hi Mike, Thanks for the request. Dennis and Tom are right - according to your License Matching Guidelines (located here: http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines), this would be a

Hi all, We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX license list and I did not find it in the list “licenses under consideration”, due to this I want to request that it

Hi all, The minutes for the last two meetings have now been posted: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-02-06 http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-02-20 You should have

Mike, I have recorded your request at http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Consideration I believe that BSD-3-Clause is your best option.