Resending unsigned due to issues with the list and my signature; I hope this solves the problem… Hi all, in today’s SPDX-Docfest I took the action item to raise a question regarding the

Dear Karsten, Sorry; I can't read your email - it appears to be encrypted. The online mailing list archives are also unable to show your email's content. Now I'm even more curious to know what

Hi all, Just a reminder of our regularly scheduled call in a bit over an hour. The docfest is going on today as well, so we may have thinner attendance, but we’ll meet and work on looking at

Hi OSI, Just noting that this does not appear to be on the SPDX License List currently. Copying SPDX-legal here as well. A new license request has been added here:

Dear all, Apologies if any of you got an error whilst trying to access the document I shared; it was password-protected. Here's a new link that takes you to a version you can see and

Dear all, In full agreement, Jilayne! :) I feel as if the major software distributions are particularly important to SPDX, as they will be in the best position to produce full SBOMs as part of their

Hi all, Just a reminder we have our legal call tomorrow/Thursday at the usual time and place. https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting Paul and I both have a conflicts, but Steve

Hi all, Thanks for the quick feedback and I'm glad to see that we basically all seem to agree that, yes, the SPDX License List should have enough coverage of licenses that a

Right, this is what I thought you meant. So to rephrase what I said in an earlier reply, the current interest among some involved in Fedora is solely to use valid SPDX short identifier expressions in

Sure. SPDX arouse as a way to cope with the variations on different licenses by providing a set of templates, with variations, to match. Since these variations had no legal differences, this was

Hi Warner, Can you explain what you mean by "copyright + SPDX-Identifier but no boilerplate"? Sorry if it's obvious. :-) It's probably important to note that the current interest in adoption of SPDX

I would suggest, though, that if we do this we strongly discourage people from using these identifiers for the 'copyright + SPDX-Identifier but no boilerplate' license scenarios. Since Fedora--, etc

Since we're all expressing agreement, let me add mine... and remind that we have this wonderful construct that can be used for "list of licenses curated by a single entity but not necessarily on the

Die 16. 08. 21 et hora 19:10 J Lovejoy scripsit: I don’t have much to add to what has been said so far, but just want to add a big fat +1 on everything said so far. cheers, Matija --

Hi Karsten: <karsten.klein@...> wrote: A big +1 for this. (And until then, namespaced LicenseRef- are an OK approach) -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne +1 650 799 0949 |

LicenseRef is a good escape valve, even for the Free Licenses that aren't yet part of SPDX, or that are marginal cases until they can be prompted to full SPDX identifiers. It's also a good way to

Hi Jilayne, My 2 cents. The license list should be able to have all non-proprietary licenses in it that are used in a distro image(be it Debian or Fedora or Yocto-derivative, etc.) If a license

Hi Jilayne, My gut reaction (not knowing specifics about the number of licenses in question) is, yes, ideally the scope of licenses on the license list would be sufficient to cover at least any