How do we deal with the slightly different obligation? I would argue that this is not the same. - Regards, Karsten metaeffekt GmbH Firmensitz: Renettenweg 6/1, 69124

Philippe, Did you actually read the proposed draft? It’s has more clarity as to key and practical aspects we already look for (e.g., stable license text) and relaxes the must-be-free requirement we

Philippe, I agree with you but I think it is orthogonal, the SPDX license inclusion guidelines would govern what goes in the official SPDX license namespace, it does not restrict what could go into

Hi Jilayne: On January 31st a compliance tooling meeting and hackathon took place in Brussels before FOSDEM [1]. One of the session topics was SPDX. Everyone there agreed that SPDX license inclusion

Hi all, I’m sending this to both the legal and general mailing lists to ensure greatest visibility. The legal team has come up with a final draft of the license inclusion guidelines based on

I suspected as such, yes. I did check the OSI list when I stumbled upon it. Ideally I would like to have it deprecated (also on OSI), but note would work as well. Thanks for looking into this. I

Hi Matija, Hmm… I thought we had put a Note in Entessa explaining this, but apparently not. Perhaps there is another case like this that I am thinking of: The reason we have Entessa on the SPDX

Hi, I just stumbled upon Entessa for the first time in real life, and upon checking it with both FOSSology/Monk and SPDX License Diff, I can’t see how it qualifies as a separate license, instead

Sounds great, thank you Jilayne! Looking forward to discussing on the call. -- Steve Winslow Director of Strategic Programs The Linux Foundation swinslow@...

Hi all, I just merged that PR - we had a bunch of comments and figured it’d be easier to have a clean iteration to look at for the meeting. Please see:

Hello all, the next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be tomorrow, Thursday, Mar. 12 at 9AM PDT / noon EDT. The primary agenda item will be to discuss, and ideally finalize for now,

I would say that CCM would be the best way to go right now, as David Wheeler already explained in detail before. Unless someone knows of a better commonly used/tested suggestion for a public domain

yes to your clarification, Matija -- I was talking about my/our own works. However ... What about cases that have been adjudged by the court as uncopyrightable or public domain contrary to a claim

<carmenbianca@...> wrote: Except, apparently, if you're a conservative lawyer at certain U.S. federal government agencies! Richard

Hi there, just our two cents... When looking at a linux distribution we recently ran into the following package text: "The contents of this package are ineligible for copyright protection." We

Hi Matija, Wouldn't that have been lapsus digiti rather than lapsus calami? I will admit that my latin is mostly self-taught. But a slip of the finger might be a miskeying rather than the pen,

You’re correct. Lapsus calami due to writing before finishing my morning tea. CC0-1.0 marks it that whatever that thing is, its author either waives all their rights, or if they can’t do that

Je mar, 2020-03-10 je 10:04 +0100, Matija Šuklje skribis: I would counter that marking something as CC0-1.0 does not clearly communicate something as uncopyrightable. Even so, slapping a license on

Just to clarify … your question is solely about marking your own works – i.e. stuff that if it were copyrightable, you would hold copyright it? If so, I would still suggest marking it with

I worry that I did not describe my use-case well. Let me try again. Rule: in my organization, all our OSS must have have explicit clearance based on SPDX-License-Identifier and SPDX-FileCopyrightText