Just seeing this thread, I would also be happy to participate in any future sessions with the IP Section of the CA Bar, especially if there's interest around a broad industry-side view on the critical

Thank you to the three of you for a really interesting presentation and especially on such late notice and in a compressed time-frame. Within minutes of ending the call I received email kudos from

Hi James, We are not so hierarchical - Tom and Mark can provide plenty of info given your time frame! As for a later webinar for MCLE credit, I'm happy to assist with that. Perhaps we can touch base

JiLayne, Could you coordinate with Tom and Mark about your active participation, please? I'd love to include you and your perspective, especially since you are co-lead and that is only fair. We can

Thanks to Tom and Mark for volunteering. And thanks James for reaching out. You have certainly not violated any "rules" of the mailing list- this is a workgroup organized in the open source spirit! I

Thank you, Tom, for jumping in! I just now received an email from Mark Gisi offering his participation so, Mark, that would be great. Tom can start and then I can turn to you (or you can interject)

Dear all – I spoke to James and will join the Licensing Interest Group’s call tomorrow. * * * * * * * * * * * * Thomas H. Vidal, Esq. Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP 5900 Wilshire

I just sent the odd email below and neglected to indicate that it is the State Bar of California. James James C. Roberts III Global Capital Law Group California | Colorado | Milan (assoc) Global

I apologize for the "clunky" way in contacting all of you but I am not sure to whom this email should be addressed. I am James C. Roberts and the Chair of the Licensing Interest Group of the IP

Hi Team, I checked the license list because I was searching for the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or any later version. I did not find an entry GFDL-1.3+, due to that I checked the information

Oliver, Soeren, That the SPDX License List does a poor job of representing the various GPL exceptions (for the reason you cited among others) has been long known and a frequent topic of discussion.

Hi all, The GPL-2.0+-with-autoconf-exception is 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 Oliver Yes clear now. (I knew I must have overlooked something, since I know that you know how to declare dual license ;)) So I agree,GPL-*.0+-with-autoconf-exception is simply not on the

Hi Soeren, I was not precise, I meant that usually you find in OSS packages files which contain the following license information: # This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or

Dear Oliver If I understand your question right, then the answer is: you declare a dual-license in this case. Technically speaking something along the lines of

Hi Team, I have a question regarding the licenses GPL-2.0-with-autoconf-exception and GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception listed in the SPDX license list. Usually files are licensed under GPL-2.0+ with

Tomorrow, Thursday - 10am PT / 1pm ET NEW DIAL-IN INFO!!! (the invite has been updated, but included here for clarification) Conference Number: +1-857-216-2871 User PIN: 38633 International:

Hi Legal Team, Creative Commons 4.0 License Family details added to http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration plus I did a bit more re-sorting of the various

Thanks Dennis! Having a closer look at this made me realize there are a few things that may need to be updated or otherwise given our attention (for example, we decided to add the CC v4 licenses, they

Hi Legal Team, http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration is updated with new columns "Short Identifier" and "Template Needed", and I changed the name of the