Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

Greetings SPDX tech and legal teams, A reminder we are continuing the license namespace discussions tomorrow, Friday, 10 June 2022, at the same time (15:00 UTC, 8AM Pacific). We will be using

By Gary O'Neall · #3145 ·

meeting today (in 45')

Hi all, We have our 2nd Thursday of the month meeting today in about 45' (at noon US eastern time). I think we ought to get back to some day-to-day items in terms of

By J Lovejoy · #3144 ·

Re: A suggestion to use Relationships for the licence variants use-case

Steve captures my same reactions well. From:Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow <swinslow@...> Date: Friday, June 3, 2022 at 6:16 PM To: Ria Schalnat (HPE)

By Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> · #3143 ·

Re: A suggestion to use Relationships for the licence variants use-case

Hi Sebastian, thanks for this — this is an interesting proposal! I want to give it some more thought, but here are a couple initial reactions: For MATCHES-LICENSE, I gather the idea is that this is

By Steve Winslow · #3142 ·

Re: A suggestion to use Relationships for the licence variants use-case

Dear Ria, Indeed, LEGALLY_EQUIVALENT_TO would express a legal interpretation made by the SPDX document productor (which could be the vendor of the software or a third party). Whether or not this is

By Sebastian Crane · #3141 ·

Re: A suggestion to use Relationships for the licence variants use-case

Sebastien, LEGALLY-EQUIVALENT-TO bothers me since "the producer of the SPDX document containing such a Relationship has made the claim that they believe the two to be legally equivalent" - if I

By Ria Schalnat (HPE) · #3140 ·

A suggestion to use Relationships for the licence variants use-case

Dear all, On our joint SPDX Legal/Tech meeting today, one of the use-cases that was discussed was No.6: "issue of capturing variants of licenses which match the same listed license per the matching

By Sebastian Crane · #3139 ·

Minutes from joint SPDX Tech Legal call available for review

Greetings SPDX tech and legal team members, Thanks to all the attendees of today’s joint tech / legal call where we discussed the namespace proposals. I just created a pull request with the

By Gary O'Neall · #3138 ·

Re: Follow-up SPDX Joint Tech / Legal Call - SPDX 2.3 requests and issues

Greetings SPDX Legal and Tech teams, Below is a more detailed agenda for our joint call this Friday 8AM Pacific time (see the forwarded message below for the meeting coordinates). To make the

By Gary O'Neall · #3137 ·

Re: Follow-up SPDX Joint Tech / Legal Call - SPDX 2.3 requests and issues

Attached is a .ics calendar file for the upcoming meeting. Gary

By Gary O'Neall · #3136 ·

Follow-up SPDX Joint Tech / Legal Call - SPDX 2.3 requests and issues

Greetings SPDX Tech and Legal Teams, The follow-up meeting to discuss license related issues and requests for the SPDX Specification version 2.3 will be this Friday at 15:00 UTC (8AM Pacific

By Gary O'Neall · #3135 ·

Re: list of license related issues

Greeting Jilayne, SPDX Legal and SPDX tech teams, I’ll create a meeting invite early next week to continue the namespace discussions. It will be a separate meeting from the tech call since

By Gary O'Neall · #3134 ·

Re: SPDX-License-Identifiers in Snippets

Dear team(s), was great hearing you again on the call yesterday. I see there is renewed interest in this topic and I dearly hope we can push it forward to whatever conclusion, so REUSE can

By Matija Šuklje · #3133 ·

Re: list of license related issues

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, Given that the tech team spent most of the Tuesday meeting discussing the namespace proposal and we spent the entire legal team doing the same, I’m going to simply

By J Lovejoy · #3132 ·

Re: [spdx/spdx-spec] Add new annex on license namespaces (PR

(responding via email so I can add spdx-legal mailing list) As a reminder of the original intent for the SPDX License List was to create a shorthand, reliable way to refer to licenses such that an

By J Lovejoy · #3131 ·

Re: [spdx/spdx-spec] Add new annex on license namespaces (PR

(responding via email so I can add spdx-legal mailing list; not sure what mess this will make in Github, so apologies in advance) On 5/26/22 12:00 AM, Alexios Zavras (zvr)

By J Lovejoy · #3130 ·

list of license related issues

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, I was trying to get my head around any and all issues/PRs/topics that are license related. Please let me know if I've missed anything on the list below!

By J Lovejoy · #3129 ·

Re: SPDX-License-Identifiers in Snippets

Thanks Steve. I agree generally with your statement in this email and have added a comment to the PR. To be clear, this is a chance to the Annex on using SPDX license

By J Lovejoy · #3128 ·

Sending my regrets for tomorrow's meeting

Dear all, Unfortunately, I will not be able to make tomorrow's SPDX Legal Team meeting. In fact, I will not have an internet connection for the rest of the week, but I'll be back online next

By Sebastian Crane · #3127 ·

Re: SPDX Legal Team call Thursday, May 26

If there is time left during the meeting on Thursday, we may also discuss the following issue (and I'd encourage folks to take a look and weigh in there as well): 3. Adding NONE to the License

By Steve Winslow · #3126 ·

261 - 280 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms