Thanks Daniel, Will look into adding this after we can get the guidance from the lawyers as to what varients are equivalent. ;) Kate

Ths comment is NOT about what the normalization should be or what equivalences should be permitted. Rather, I suggest a different approach to how we represent the result of the agreed upon

I believe we already discussed this to some degree and decided that we would not enter the arena of word equivalents with the exception of spelling variations for known American-British English.

I agree. I wonder if a solution is to allow the specification of "variant" of a license. Perhaps a way to say: the closest license is this one, with a text similarity metric of X, and where the

Hi Scott, The problem is that the today the various tools have nothing to check against to make sure that they are applying the rules correctly. The templatized version is intended as a tool

I think having some examples of text with the normalization rules applied is a good idea. However those examples should be in the spec. Having to go to the registry to see examples will make it

These variant licenses would simply end up needing to be added as a “nonstandard” license, meaning the SPDX generator would not be able to use the standardized SPDX license list shortname for that

Yes, and let's not forget this same point when we are talking about the process of adding new license to the standard list. The discussion is never whether the license can be included in an SPDX

Philip Odence twisted the bytes to say: Philip> Yes, and let's not forget this same point when we are talking about the process of adding new license to the standard list. The discussion is never

With a few minor changes and the ‘.0’ put back in the short names. This should be (close to?) the final first version... Find it here: http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list I also

Hi Martin, In the SPDX tech face to face meeting we discussed adding the license information to the spdx website at spdx.org/licenses. Attached is the output of a tool that converts the license

Hi Gary and everyone, I could not open the spreadsheet you said, as I got a corrupted message, but in any case, I made the changes/additions you mentioned below and re-uploaded a “v1.8” to the

Thanks Jilayne for the updates and review. I just downloaded the 1.8 version of the spreadsheet and I can not open it in excel (the open office version worked fine). It turns out that the

All: As discussed during yesterday's call, below please find links for your review. Many thanks, Rockett ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Copenhaver, Karen <kcopenhaver@...> Date: Wed,

FYI all ... Begin forwarded message: From: "Copenhaver, Karen" <kcopenhaver@...> Date: April 14, 2011 6:32:19 AM PDT To: "E. A. Rockett (rockett@...)" <rockett@...> Subject: FW: SPDX and Support

All: For today's meeting I propose we: (1) focus on the "meta-data confidentiality/licensing" issue, and any feedback/reaction from your independent review of Open Data Commons PDDL 1.0

Hi all, Concerning the license, did you discuss about the ODbL (which can be use without requiring any attribution)? It should be a good license too, but I don't know if it fits the needs: *

Hi all, Concerning the license, did you discuss about the ODbL (which can be use without requiring any attribution)? It should be a good license too, but I don't know if it fits the needs: *

Hi all, In reviewing the SPDX Specification at the Linux Collab Summit face-to-face, the team noticed that there was some inconsistency regarding the use of the terms UNKNOWN, UNDETERMINED, NONE,

Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the legal meeting this week. But, I would like to offer a comment on the proposed 3 no-value values: I see terms for: - determined - no attempt to