just a quick note on this: the leftpad issue had some very specific and extenuating circumstances that led to the mess it created which are really not applicable here. So while the legal team will

Hi all, I’m admittedly a bit late to this party despite having a few thoughts on the topic. This thread has quite a few aspects to it, starting with Jeff’s initial proposal, so I’ll try to hit

When I inquired about this topic ages ago, the impression I got from the replies was that the RFN mechanism was a better fit for the "Exception" list (or whatever it may be called going forward for

The SIL Open Font License 1.1 (SPDX short identifier OFL-1.1) and its superseded predecessor (OFL-1.0) have a notion of a "Reserved Font Name". In the case of OFL-1.1, at least, this is contemplated

FYI – This may be particularly useful for our working groups. Gary

As discussed at the SPDX meeting prior to OSLS two weeks ago. Proposed: two methods for for organizations to self-declare SPDX license identifiers. The two methods will be referred to a

Hi all, Gary asked us to log issues for any improvements we might think of for the SPDX online tools - particularly related to the submit license and generate XML tools. I have just added some notes

I just posted meeting minutes for today’s call (still need to add those from last meeting). https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-03-21 Please note: for merging the final PRs, let’s

Hi all, Meant to send this out last night, but as a last minute reminder, we have a meeting today at the top of the hour. Dial-in info: Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional

Looks good to me. --- Mike Dolan VP of Strategic Programs The Linux Foundation Office: +1.330.460.3250 Cell: +1.440.552.5322 Skype: michaelkdolan mdolan@... ---

Hi Philippe, I’m not going to re-hash what was a very lengthy and (surprisingly to me) heated discussion on the Linux kernel enforcement statement, since that is all in the email list

Hi all, Towards the end of 2018, Richard Fontana submitted the GPL Cooperation Commitment for review to be added to the SPDX License List. We had some discussion about how that might work, but due to

Dear legal eagles: I just saw that the request to have a proper SPDX license id for the Kernel enforcement statement has been closed [1]. I guess I should have followed the discussion that happened

Kyle: Thankyou: that's all valuable things to consider indeed and hard earned from the leftpad issues. Though I doubt mere licenses will ever be as successful as npm! -- Cordially Philippe

Richard: Let me recap my understanding: I think everyone agrees that we want want more licenses in SPDX. Anyone against this, please voice your concerns now. The review of new licenses for list is

The word "registry" always gives me flashbacks. Shared namespaces offer a unique kind of value, but always come with carrying costs, scaling stepwise with popularity. For example, the statutory

Richard, Jeff: Agreed. What I am trying to achieve here is to make these become "standard" and known at SPDX. I think this is possible. <Jeff.McAffer@...> wrote: This ideal works in theory

and here is the link to that announcement that I forgot to include before: https://www.finos.org/blog/announcing-the-open-source-license-compliance-handbook ;) Jilayne

Hi SPDX folks (legal and general list), I want to tell you about a project I’ve been working on with Aaron Williamson and the Fintech Open Source Foundation (FINOS) that I think many of you may be