Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Invitation: SPDX Legal Team meeting - 2022 @ Every 2 weeks from 12pm to 1pm on Thursday from Thu Jan 6, 2022 to Sat Dec 31, 2022 (EST) (spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org)

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

By Steve Winslow · #3065 ·

we have a meeting today!

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

By J Lovejoy · #3064 ·

legal team meeting today

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

By J Lovejoy · #3063 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

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

By Sebastian Crane · #3062 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

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

By Steve Winslow · #3061 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

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

By J Lovejoy · #3060 ·

Re: Use of exception to communicate legal ambiguity

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

By Matija Šuklje · #3059 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

~ 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

By Max Mehl · #3058 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

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

By Steve Kilbane · #3057 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

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

By Karen Sandler · #3056 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

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

By Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> · #3055 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

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

By Michael Dolan · #3054 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

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

By J Lovejoy · #3053 ·

Re: Use of exception to communicate legal ambiguity

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

By Michael Dolan · #3052 ·

Re: Use of exception to communicate legal ambiguity

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

By Luis Villa · #3051 ·

Re: Use of exception to communicate legal ambiguity

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

By Alexios Zavras · #3050 ·

Re: Use of exception to communicate legal ambiguity

~ 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

By Max Mehl · #3049 ·

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

Well, insanity question aside (because at some level, all of our sanity will need to be questioned because we deal with this ;) ), if you don't reproduce them (variations and all), you risk breaching

By Neal Gompa · #3048 ·

Re: Use of exception to communicate legal ambiguity

Hi Richard, Thanks for sharing this question. I've been mulling it over and don't have a good answer, so here instead are a few disjointed thoughts. My main hesitation with an "If-Needed-exception"

By Steve Winslow · #3047 ·

no legal-team meeting tomorrow

Hi everyone, On account of the US Thanksgiving holiday, we will not have an SPDX-legal team meeting tomorrow, Thursday, Nov 25th Have a great holiday or weekend and

By J Lovejoy · #3046 ·

341 - 360 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms