Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

I want to point out that with the adoption of license namespaces a large number of such cases would be delegated. So, even if, for example, Intel firmware binaries are “popular” and found in

By Alexios Zavras · #2605 ·

Re: meeting minutes from today

Die 1. 06. 19 et hora 00:58 Dave Marr scripsit: I agree. Although the question still remains what constitutes a popular license – does a non-FOSS license that is also not used by any substantial

By Matija Šuklje · #2604 ·

Re: meeting minutes from today

+1 SPDX is only pragmatically useful to me if it generally reflects the licenses I’m likely to encounter when vetting community software. Dave

By Dave Marr · #2603 ·

SPDX-Copyright

Hi spdx-legal, I'm following up from a thread in linux-spdx[1] and a response to that thread by Jilayne[2]. At this year's LLW in Barcelona, Max Mehl, Kate Stewart, Oliver Fendt, Jeff McAffer and I

By Carmen Bianca Bakker · #2602 ·

Re: meeting minutes from today

I agree we should err on the inclusive side. In concept, I think the driver should be popularity more than OSS definition. It’s better for users to include commonly used open source-like license.

By Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> · #2601 ·

Re: meeting minutes from today

I tend to think SPDX should error on being more inclusive as we're expecting tool providers, end users and others scanning code to recognize and match the licenses. If they're not listed in SPDX, they

By Michael Dolan · #2600 ·

meeting minutes from today

cut and pasting them here, instead of sending a link - maybe that will stir some energy around the last statement in particular… ;) Attendees[edit] John Horan Jilayne Lovejoy Mark Atwood Gary

By J Lovejoy · #2599 ·

GSoC project proposal to be discussed on the call today

Hello everyone, I would like to share my project proposal for GSoC on the enhancement of license submittal with y'all. I would really like to get your feedback on the call today. Here, is the link to

By Umang · #2598 ·

meeting today at top of the hour

sorry, thought I had sent this last night! agenda: 1) GSoC update 2) 3.6 release (aka lots o’ licenses that still need to be reviewed… Jilayne

By J Lovejoy · #2597 ·

Re: Solderpad licenses on SPDX License List

HI Jilayne Sorry not to get back to you sooner, but there have been some developments with this which I had hoped to finalise before getting back to you, but it looks like that will not happen,

By Andrew Katz · #2596 ·

documentation - license list overview

Hi all, We’ve been working on some updates and improvements to some of the SPDX License List documentation over the last couple meetings. Below is a bit of a summary of some of the updates and an

By J Lovejoy · #2595 ·

Solderpad licenses on SPDX License List

Andrew! I wanted to get your Solderpad licenses on the last SPDX License List release, but didn’t make it as I had a couple remaining questions and you didn’t respond when I tagged you on Github

By J Lovejoy · #2594 ·

meeting minutes posted (and help needed)

from today’s call here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-05-16 please note: we have MANY new license requests. We need review by the whole team (not just one or two of us…) to

By J Lovejoy · #2593 ·

regular legal call in an hour

Agenda: review new license requests - there are a lot of them. Please have a look, if possible, in the Github issues list. Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional dial in

By J Lovejoy · #2592 ·

ABA Open-Source Committee: John Lyon (SSPL/Commons Clause) on Thurs. 5/9 @ 2pm ET

Hi all, There is a call with the American Bar Association's Open-Source committee next Thursday, May 9 at 2:00 PM (ET), when they host John Lyon and a discussion of the SSPL/Commons Clause. I don't

By Brad Edmondson · #2591 ·

meeting tomorrow (thursday)

Hi all, We will have our regularly scheduled call. (see dial in info here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team) I’d like to make a point to spend a bit of time discussing the topic below.

By J Lovejoy · #2590 ·

Re: Question about BSD-Source-Code

Thank you, Alan. I think it would be worth reviewing/discussing how BSD-flavored licenses are named, as there are quite many variations in existence. I find the syntax "BSD-#-Clause" is a bit limited,

By Rob Guinness · #2589 ·

Re: Question about BSD-Source-Code

One thing worth noting is I don't recall us comparing the short name against other existing licenses's short names as part of the review process. We review the license terms against existing licenses

By Alan Tse · #2588 ·

Re: Question about BSD-Source-Code

Thank you, Mike. I still find the name a bit confusing, as the first clause is, in my opinion, about more than attribution, but I also recognize these licenses are difficult to summarize with a

By Rob Guinness · #2587 ·

Re: Question about BSD-Source-Code

Hi Rob, not sure if this helps, but I found the minutes from one of the discussions here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2016-03-03 --- Mike Dolan

By Michael Dolan · #2586 ·

801 - 820 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms