Our meeting time and day will be changing to every other Thursday, 10am PT / 11am MT / 1pm ET (alternating with the Business Team calls). Dial-in info remains the same. I will send a new invite

Copied below and at this link: http://spdx.org/wiki/legal-team-meeting-minutes-2013-01-13 Please read and note agenda items for next call. Email to follow re: new meeting time for Legal Team and

At the Linux Foundation’s Open Compliance Summit last October, we received several requests for SPDX file examples and a demo of SPDX file generation. Here is a web page that makes these resources

When: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:00 AM-10:00 AM. (UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada)Where: +001.866.740.1260 or +001.303.248.0285 access code 2404545*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* One-off meeting time for

All, I hope everyone is well and ready to make great strides on the SPDX Legal Team in 2013! Going forward we had proposed to change the date/time of the Legal Team call (as well as the Business Team

Hi All and Happy New Year. In case anyone was wondering – there is no SPDX Legal Team call tomorrow morning. We will resume next week or the week thereafter – details to come. I will also have

Armijn, This license was already suggested and was part of the source for the greater discussion as to whether the SPDX License List should "only" include "open source" licenses and if so, how to

Daniel, Thanks to you and Trevor for contributing. I agree with Guillaume. This is great discussion for the Legal Team. Let's remove the general list from the thread. (also, please note that the

Michel, Thank you very much for the feedback. I believe that these issues are better discussed by the Technical Team. I am cc'ing Kate who runs that team to make sure she agrees and so she can suggest

(sorry, I amnot sure if spdx legal is the good mailing list) ALU is implementing the SPDX standard for itsinternal database on open source. There is two major issues with the standard. 1) there

Of course, it is possible to present this information in a column in a license list since we did it :-) http://www.antepedia.com/pages/community.html We recently run a training

This is a really a very thorny issue indeed. As an example from a recent discussion: a library licensed under LGPLv2.1 is used by an application licensed under Apache Software License 2.0. On the

hi all, I tried to follow the procedure listed here: http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added but the page does not exist. In some packages from Tizen I am

I've been reading this thread with interest. A couple non-lawyer points... 1. Jason's point below "we want third parties - upstream, downstream, skeptical, and otherwise - to adopt SPDX, they

Why should the substantive differences between the aims of the OSI and SPDX license lists mean they shouldn't share common elements such as ease of digestibility and transparent entrance

Some comments inline. From:spdx-legal-bounces@...[mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...]On Behalf Of Jason Buttura (jbuttura)

2012-10-30 20:37 Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>: | Oh well, yes, that information is certainly helpful, I would agree! But it | involves exactly the kind of legal interpretation that

This is more about threshold SPDX issues than an in-depth analysis of a specific license. SPDX is a tool to operationalize how the morass of software IP and notices out in the wild can be handled in

Hi everyone From: "Jason Buttura (jbuttura)" <jbuttura@...<mailto:jbuttura@...>> Date: Monday, 3 December 2012 19:06 To: Tom Incorvia

Agreed, Jason, hence the recent discussions, as you know. Now if we could only get others to participate so when we reach some kind of consensus, we have the confidence of broad participation. I