Hello, I would like to request addition of the Eclipse Distribution License in the SPDX license list. The EDL-1.0 is a variation of the New BSD License (fixing . Here is what I would suggest:

Hi Van, thanks for submitting this. I've copied it over to an issue in the SPDX license-list-XML repo, so that comments and input can be aggregated there -- see

Hello, I have received a preliminary positive report from OSI’s license committee on the Cryptographic Autonomy License v.1.0, or “CAL”. The CAL also includes a built-in “Combined Works

Minutes from today’s joint legal / technical has been posted to joint tech/legal call here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/Minutes/2019-12-03 Gary

You have been invited to the following event. SPDX joint legal/tech team meeting When Tue Dec 3, 2019 1pm – 2pm Eastern Time - New York Where https://zoom.us/j/663426859

This week's SPDX legal team meeting will be cancelled due to the US holiday on Thursday. You should receive a calendar cancellation sent to this list shortly. We will likely be holding a joint legal /

This week's legal team meeting is beginning momentarily, apologies for the very late notice... UberConference: https://www.uberconference.com/room/SPDXTeam Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586 --

Hello all, The next Legal Team meeting will be today, Thursday, Oct. 31 at 9AM PT / 12PM ET. The agenda will include: 1) update from the joint legal/tech meeting last week 2) discussing a couple of

Hi, The Arch Linux community recently started a discussion around adopting SPDX license identifiers to simplify/improve their license handling:

I have added a new section at the bottom of this document that maps the fields to profiles, I've incorporated nearly all of the original proposal content into that

My feedback (and feel free to pass this onto their list) would be to ensure they adopt SPDX Expressions (https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60) rather than accepting a

Hello all, The version 3.7 release of the license list is now tagged and live at https://spdx.org/licenses. Along with documentation updates and markup tweaks, 6 new licenses and exceptions were added

Hi all, Just a reminder we'll be having a joint legal & tech call for this month, in an hour from now. Agenda: - review some of the changes being discussed for SPDX 3.0 with focus on: - move

Hi Armijn, From a quick look at the licenses on the license list, I see a couple that are close, but which would be considered different licenses under the SPDX matching guidelines [1]: * NTP [2] --

hello, I searched but I couldn't find it in the archives, so apologies if this question has already come up. Recently I looked at some old code from

Hi Stefan, thanks for reaching out. It looks to me like this one is equivalent (for SPDX matching purposes) to bzip2-1.0.6 which is currently on the license list [1]. So I don't expect that this would

Valgrind (http://valgrind.org) is mostly licensed under GPL-2.0-or later, but includes several permissively licensed header files for inclusion in arbitrary client programs. Proposed Full Name:

During the discussion about SPDX 3.0 and positioning SPDX as an option for the various SBoM efforts that are going on, one of the discussion points was about making the specification more digestible

Update on the spec git repo below: Gary

Thanks Mike - responses below! Yes, I think this is how it has been set up in the PR - as it’s own Appendix and .md file, so one can refer to it separately there. I suppose we could change links to