Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

That was my plan, but I will have to do it next time. I'm fighting internet issues and since comcast is involved, it's looking like it is going to take a while. Warner

By Warner Losh · #3005 ·

legal call today

Hi all, We have our regular call today at noon EDT. We'll catch up on any other "intros"; I think Warner was going to give an update on the SPDX work in FreeBSD (if you

By J Lovejoy · #3004 ·

Re: Take on concluded license; introducing effective license

Hi Karsten, well, I suppose that is not surprising it came up again, as I think we talked about some documentation during the last conversation, but, um, that never got done.

By J Lovejoy · #3003 ·

Re: Take on concluded license; introducing effective license

Hi Jilayne, I thought we discussed this or something very similar during the early licensing-profile discussions regarding a “distributed license” concept and it was put to rest? :) The reason I

By Karsten Klein · #3002 ·

Re: Take on concluded license; introducing effective license

HI Karsten, I thought we discussed this or something very similar during the early licensing-profile discussions regarding a “distributed license” concept and it was put to rest? :) In any case, I

By J Lovejoy · #3001 ·

Re: Take on concluded license; introducing effective license

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

By Karsten Klein · #3000 ·

Re: Take on concluded license; introducing effective license

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

By Sebastian Crane · #2999 ·

Take on concluded license; introducing effective license

By Karsten Klein · #2998 ·

meeting today

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

By J Lovejoy · #2997 ·

Re: Legacy Approval, Licnese of Jam

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:

By J Lovejoy · #2996 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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

By Sebastian Crane · #2995 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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

By Sebastian Crane · #2994 ·

meeting tomorrow and some topics

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

By J Lovejoy · #2993 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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

By J Lovejoy · #2992 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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

By Richard Fontana · #2991 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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

By Warner Losh · #2990 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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

By Richard Fontana · #2989 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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

By Warner Losh · #2988 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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

By Alexios Zavras · #2987 ·

Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro

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 --

By Matija Šuklje · #2986 ·

401 - 420 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms