Hi, can anyone explain the MIT License point that says to include the license of used code, but can it be included inside the file but not directly with copied code?

Hello spdx-legal list, This is a friendly reminder that the next release of the License List (version 3.9) is targeted for the end of April. I'd encourage folks to review the list of open issues,

Hi Andrew, Great! FYI - this email got moderated because you are not on the mailing list with this address. I have unmoderated you, but would be best if you could join the mailing list or use the

Hi All Now that version 2 of CERN-OHL has been released, we are keen to see the 3 variants allocated an appropriate SPDX licence identifier. You can find the licences here:

Hello all, Following from Jilayne's email earlier this month, the legal team has now finalized and posted the update to the license inclusion principles for the SPDX License List. The updated

Hi all, The SPDX legal team has its regular bi-weekly call tomorrow, Thursday at noon, Eastern Daylight Savings time (note: The US moved our clocks forward, but I believe the UK and Europe has yet to

Hi Kyle, Thanks for having a look. As to your question: we had a discussion on one of the many calls we discussed this topic and ran the hypothetical of what if there were no “rules” or the

For those who weren't able to attend today, here is a recording of the presentation from William about some of the potential directions for the SPDX 3.0 spec:

Hello SPDX legal team, Tomorrow (Tuesday, March 24) at 1PM EDT, the tech team will be discussing some of the proposed changes to the spec for version 3.0. For those of you who are available, this

All, I am both impressed by the work Jilayne and others have put into the guidelines, and in strong sympathy with the general thrust Philippe reports from the conference. I didn't go to FOSDEM, but

William, Sorry to air-drop into this conversation. I've been lurking fairly reliably, but have been too slammed to keep an active voice in all the various places where people are typing. Is there

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@...