Hi everyone, After discussing with mentors: Steve and Gary; we thought it wise to seek everyone's opinion on two topics: 1. Change back the isMatch field to Boolean(true/false) In the previous email

Hi all, I merged the minutes from the last 3 meetings: https://github.com/spdx/meetings/tree/master/legal I also updated the wiki to remove the outdated conference call info and add a link to the new

Hello all, The next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be today, Thursday, July 2, at 9AM PDT / noon EDT. For the agenda we will look briefly at: 1) PR #1048 -- adding the -invariants /

Thanks for discussing this issue. I agree that asking the ANTLR 2 people might be helpful to learn more about the history of the license and what they consider appropriate. Best, Till Am 23.06.20

Why don’t we reach out since they’re the license steward to see if they’d prefer an update vs two separate licenses? From: <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow <swinslow@...> Date:

Hi Brad, it's a good point and I was considering that too. I guess my one question would be whether there are other projects that have used the original vs. the later version of the license, beyond

Thanks Till for reporting the issue and Steve for looking into it. My first reaction would be that the two texts, ANTLR with additional license and ANTLR without, are legally different licenses (with

Hi Till -- taking a closer look, it seems that the language you cited was added to the original ANTLR 2 license sometime later, which is probably why it isn't in the license list version. Looking at

Thanks for flagging this, Till. I've added an issue in the license-list-XML repo to track this at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1056. I don't know the history of this one myself, but

Hi all, 1- I don't think http://localhost/ or https://127.0.0.1 should be valid urls. So I shall consider those exceptions in my code. 2- In addition to https, http and ftp; Are there any other

Hello list, I just found out that there is a deviation from https://spdx.org/licenses/ANTLR-PD.html#licenseText to the linked text from http://www.antlr2.org/license.html which contains the following

Die 19. 06. 20 et hora 03:00 J Lovejoy scripsit: FWIW, another lawyerly +1 on Till‘s analysis from me. […] This is why REUSE <https://reuse.software> requires the license texts to be stored

Hi all, Thanks Till for weighing in here! I think there are two general issues that come up here: (a) A technical question: When generating SPDX data at the file level, how does one identify the

Hi all, I have some remarks from a lawyer's perspective who is scanning source code and/or has to deal with the results from scanning. 1. It is helpful if the license text file is differently

Hi Richard: Then in this case you can take the same approach as Debian's packaging: your package in d) can be under its own license unrelated to the license of the things it contains. You could

I think "LicenseRef-license-text" is inappropriate as the different texts have differing licenses so we need something finer grained. LicenseRef-FSF-license-text would work for the FSF licenses and

Just to be really clear, the license ID of a given specific package *is* correct and definitive. What is unclear is the license of the license information. The challenge is that one software project

Hi Richard: <richard.purdie@...> wrote: I think there may be a different perspective to consider: Why include the GPL text if it does not apply (or for that matter for

You might want to consider using something more general, like LicenseRef-FSF-license-text or even LicenseRef-license-text, to use the same for all license files... -- zvr

Thanks, so to summarise, the answer is that: a) there are no SPDX identifiers for the license of a license text b) there are no plans to add any c) we can create our own namespace as mentioned above