Hi all, I wanted to raise a question I've been thinking of in light for Fedora and other open source OS distros looking to adopt use of SPDX license identifiers in various ways. One concern that

Hello all, The version 3.14 release of the license list is now tagged and live at https://spdx.org/licenses. 13 new licenses were added to the

Thanks for the forward! It appears to be open for public comment now > (Btw, this message got caught up as from a non-member - not sure if you used a different email address?)I specifically entered

Quoting J Lovejoy (2021-08-05 05:52:13) Since I assume it is not only relevant if those licenses identified by Fedora exists "in the wild" only _distributed_ by Fedora, I can suggest to also make

Hi Sebastian, I knew/hoped there'd be some SPDX'ers who were also Fedora fans! See comment below on where folks familiar with SPDX could be of most help: On

Hi all, Sorry for the delay in responding, I got busy with other things and needed some time to fully re-read this thread and absorb everything. Thanks to Max, Matija, and

Dear Jilayne, That's great news! I have been using Fedora for about two years as my primary operating system, so hearing about this development is particularly interesting to me. Wow - that's an

Hi Anthony, Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to add a comment, but it appears to be closed. Thomas is active in the SPDX-tech team, but would be nice if someone from the SPDX-legal could add a

Hi Lars, I've just added comments in both threads giving a +1 to add each of these. If others from the legal team community can add in (so that we've got approval per

Hi, I have requests open for two Creative Commons ports, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 FR and CC BY 3.0 NL. Could those still be included in this release, or is it too late for that? I can prepare the files today

Hi all, We are going to aim for the end of next week for the 3.14 release - giving everyone an extra week to tidy up any outstanding issues. So, if you haven't gotten to

Dear Sebastian, Max: That's the source of the issue. License texts in SPDX have never been designed to be used as a reference for attribution. This is unfortunately commonly done but ends up more

Alexios, Jilayne: IMHO it would be a good time to revisit this. The case of license identifier does not and never did really matter otherwise. It does not matter to users. And most tools do not

Sebastian, When you say "Nothing similar had been brought up before" are you talking about the inclusion of GPL text inside the LGPL one? Because the whole thing "LGPL is an exception" and "needs

Hi Jilayne, You can refresh your memory on the discussions (2015-2020) by readinghttps://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/63😉 I still like my example from that thread: Do we really want to

I think I may have received this email in error. -- James L. Royer 275 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 E: jroyer6308@... | P: (415) 685-7030

Dear Jilayne, Things have been moving really quickly on this, so I think I ought to give some background! I believe this to be a complete summary, though of course I don't know of the content of the

Hi Legal, Tech teams, I just want to clarify my understanding of capitalization sensitivity for SPDX license ids and license expression operators: Appendix IV states:

Quoting Max Mehl (2021-07-28 17:56:41) Seems to me that these views are not contradictory but describes different matters: * SPDX lingo describes which licensing has been granted * REUSE wants to

~ J Lovejoy [2021-07-28 17:34 +0200]: From my understanding, they did not want to treat LGPL-3.0 as an exception to GPL-3.0. So they turned down "GPL-3.0* WITH LGPL-3.0*". "GPL-3.0 AND LGPL-3.0" as