Hi all, This is a follow-up from the discussion last summer at [1], based on the conversation during the Legal Team call this past week. Folks may want to re-read the (long) thread there, which has

Hi Sebastian, Thanks for checking on this. I think this is meant to be the schedule -- let me know if the invites aren't lining up correctly: * General Meeting: First Thursday of every month,

Dear Steve, Thanks for sending this out! Since the SPDX Outreach Team meetings had been moved in 2021 to fit in with the Legal and General meetings, I'm wondering if you could offer some

You have been invited to the following event. SPDX Legal Team meeting - 2022 When Every 2 weeks from 12pm to 1pm on Thursday from Thu Jan 6, 2022 to Sat Dec 31, 2022 Eastern Time - New

For those of you working today, we'll have a look at any open new license

Hi all, We have our regular legal team meeting today at 10am mountain time. Please have a look at the open issues, particularly the new license

Dear Karen, Indeed, the full text of the license should always been available when using SPDX License Identifiers. The suggestion (which we've now removed) to include the licenses' typical header

Jilayne, I agree with this. Projects, organizations, license stewards, etc. may all have recommendations about whether or how standard license headers should or shouldn't be used for particular

Understandably! This thread began over a month ago with a rather specific question relating to updating a web page and then it sort of wandered around a bit. I’m somewhat confused at this point as

Die 28. 11. 21 et hora 05:26 Luis Villa scripsit: I was thinking in the same lines of a ($“pd” OR $license) solution. It does make things more complicated than just $license, but if there is

~ Steve Kilbane [2021-12-02 10:16 +0100]: I vaguely recall a discussion on how the Linux kernel project should deal with this if they want to replace the copyright notices (in all their variety, as

Karen said: Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of the conversation, but I was assuming that the recommendations under discussion were intended for use *by* copyright holders. In other words, if it's

I'm a bit confused by the discussion here. We know that the licenses require that license information and notices be retained, as Mike Dolan pointed out. (In GPL-2.0 this text is "keep intact all the

Mike, this is really interesting input and provides great perspective. Thank you. When we first started advocating SPDX headers in files, we were concerned that there would be a backlash of

I'll just add that with the Linux kernel I was stunned when Kate Stewart and a few others analyzed how many unintentional minor variations there were in the "standard" GPLv2 header in just the kernel

top-posting as I'm not sure I can keep up with the various comments, but a bit of background: - the first idea of using the identifiers in source files from outside the main SPDX

Hi Richard, one initial thought that comes to mind is there are many projects with a single LICENSE file in the main repository directory. That's despite many of the files in the repository

It seems to me that the core problem here is that there is an assertion being made— that an evaluation has been made and that the results of the evaluation is that it is public-domain-like. I’m

From a completely different perspective, ignoring whether the copyrightability of a file is decided by the producer or the consumer, I don't like using the exception syntax from a purely technical

~ Steve Winslow [2021-11-24 20:14 +0100]: IANAL, but my sentiments exactly. Of course I can patch a AGPL* license (plus copyright holder) on top of a file with `print("hello world")` being its only