Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: public domain dedications proliferation

Thanks for the quick responses, Steve and Mike! I should have been more clear on what I needed input on ASAP - which was, a) what info would be helpful to collect (now) about any public domain

By J Lovejoy · #3205 ·

Re: public domain dedications proliferation

In addition to Steve's thoughts... I will respond quickly as that was the request ... and likely miss issues. My only additional though is could we add a generic public domain license reference to the

By Michael Dolan · #3204 ·

Re: public domain dedications proliferation

Hi Jilayne, since you asked for input ASAP, here are a few immediate gut reactions :) I think getting the data of seeing a bunch of different ways that people said "this code is released into the

By Steve Winslow · #3203 ·

public domain dedications proliferation

Hi SPDX-legal, I have raised this a couple times in the past few months or so, but now that it is more of a "ripe" topic, I wanted to get some input on preliminary ideas:

By J Lovejoy · #3202 ·

3.18 License List release

Hello all, The version 3.18 release of the license list is now tagged and live at https://spdx.org/licenses. 10 new licenses / exceptions were added to the

By Steve Winslow · #3201 ·

meeting at top of the hour

Hi all, Just a last minute reminder of our regular call today at the top of the hour. As mentioned previously, for the next release cycle (through end of Sept) we are going to focus on updating and

By J Lovejoy · #3200 ·

Idea: SPDX-DCO-File-License-Identifier

I've thought some more about certain unintended problems some of us were previously discussing regarding the use of SPDX-License-Identifier: in source files. In particular it's occurred to me that the

By Richard Fontana · #3199 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

I hope you are all ready for the upcoming pains in the next few years. Transitioning Fedora to SPDX is not going to be a happy time for a little while, since there's a huge impedance mismatch between

By Neal Gompa · #3198 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

Nice. This certainly makes it easy to map from Fedora to SPDX IDs! SPDX license identifiers have emerged as a standard Woo hoo! From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve

By Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> · #3197 ·

the "documentation release" for 3.19

Hi all, On our call a few days ago, Steve raised the idea of using the next release to JUST focus on documentation improvements. There haven’t been a ton of new license requests and some of the

By J Lovejoy · #3196 ·

prep for 3.18 release

Hi all, I just went through all the issue in terms of what we can likely get in for the 3.18 release. Seems like most issues are already assigned to Steve or I :) Could someone pick up this one and

By J Lovejoy · #3195 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

Jilayne, this is awesome news -- thanks for passing it along! Looking forward to us working with the Fedora community to support them adding SPDX license IDs across the distro. Steve

By Steve Winslow · #3194 ·

Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

Hot off the press! Link to blog post of this here:https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/important-changes-to-software-license-information-in-fedora-packages-spdx-and-more/

By J Lovejoy · #3193 ·

legal call at top of the hour

Hi all, Just a quick reminder that the SPDX-legal call will be at the top of the hour. We'll focus on what tasks can be completed for the next release and, if

By J Lovejoy · #3192 ·

SPDX Spec Version 2.3 Available for Review

Greetings all, The SPDX spec version 2.3 is now available for review at https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3-RC1/. A summary of the changes can be found in the SPEC Annex I. If you

By Gary O'Neall · #3191 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] stable spec URLs

Hi Max, Given the evolution of the SPDX Specification format(s) - that is, it was mainly in .pdf form for most of the past versions, I’d say that if you want to refer to a specific version, I’d

By J Lovejoy · #3190 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] stable spec URLs

~ J Lovejoy [2022-07-26 06:00 +0200]: Interesting question! I, too, am a bit confused of the various URLs. Asked the other way round: are there also stable links for older versions, e.g. a permalink

By Max Mehl · #3189 ·

stable spec URLs

(cross-posting to tech and legal team, as I suspect others may be interested) Hi SPDX-tech team, I just wanted to confirm my understanding of the various formats we

By J Lovejoy · #3188 ·

Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions

I feel like what some projects might find useful is something

By Richard Fontana · #3187 ·

Re: Commutativity of SPDX expressions

Thanks Sebastian - since we haven't finished the review of the version 2.3, I think there is still time. Best regards, Gary

By Gary O'Neall · #3186 ·

201 - 220 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms