Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: [spdx] announcing: Open Source Compliance Handbook

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

By J Lovejoy · #2565 ·

announcing: Open Source Compliance Handbook

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

By J Lovejoy · #2564 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

By Gary O'Neall · #2563 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

I love the idea of being able to easily represent arbitrary licenses with SPDX identifiers. We use a number of SPDX based license expression tools and all of them require that the leaf nodes in an

By Jeff McAffer <Jeff.McAffer@...> · #2562 ·

Re: An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

Hi Jilayne: I sent it quickly during the legal team call on Thursday and sorry for not providing much background then. Here it is: There has been a recent discussion initiated by Mark Atwood to

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2561 ·

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

This sounds appealing to me (if I'm understanding it correctly). From Red Hat's perspective one of the great impracticalities of SPDX has been that, after many years of SPDX's existence, its

By Richard Fontana · #2560 ·

new license workflow documentation

Hi all, As discussed on a previous call, I’ve added a new doc describing the workflow for adding a new license. This aims to capture the steps for our team members who are shepherding a request

By J Lovejoy · #2559 ·

Re: An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

Hi Philippe, I’m a bit lost on what the goal of this is. Can you provide a bit more context. I looked at a couple entries and noticed, for example, this one:

By J Lovejoy · #2558 ·

Re: New License/Exception Request: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Of course. For those following along, I am @kemitchell on github.com. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933

By Kyle Mitchell · #2557 ·

Re: New License/Exception Request: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Hi Kyle, Could I please ask you to submit this via our (somewhat) new and improved system as described here:

By J Lovejoy · #2556 ·

New License/Exception Request: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Full Name: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 Short Identifier: BlueOak-1.0.0 Text: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 Text File: Attached OSI: Not approved. Not submitted. Aside: All other

By Kyle Mitchell · #2555 ·

An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

See https://github.com/nexB/spdx-license-namespaces-registry/ and https://github.com/nexB/spdx-license-namespaces-registry/pull/1 -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne +1 650 799 0949 |

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2554 ·

call on Thursday, agenda

Hi All, Just a reminder that we have our bi-weekly call this Thursday at 17:00 GMT (9:00AM PT, 10:00 MT, 11:00 CT, 12:00PM ET). As we are getting close to the “deadline” for getting stuff in for

By J Lovejoy · #2553 ·

Re: Verify new license text for libpng-2.0

Hi Brad, I agree with you on including just the new text as part of the Libpng-2.0 text for matching purposes. The fact that they've designated the lower part of [2] as being "version 1" suggests to

By Steve Winslow · #2552 ·

Verify new license text for libpng-2.0

Hi all, I've added a PR #755 [1] for libpng 2.0, but realized we hadn't explicitly said on the legal call whether this was just going to be the new text (v2 only), or the full text now in the license

By Brad Edmondson · #2551 ·

Legal call shortly

Sorry for last minute warning! Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity and typographical errors.

By J Lovejoy · #2550 ·

Re: Open license from Red Hat

Thank you Alexios, that helped to find the issue. The original one had: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any" The Red Hat version has: "Permission to use, copy,

By Max Brito · #2549 ·

Re: Open license from Red Hat

That's ISC: https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html -- zvr –

By Alexios Zavras · #2548 ·

Open license from Red Hat

Hello, I've found a permissive license published by Red Hat in 2010 with a wording similar to MIT-like. However, it is shorter and uses substantially different words albeit having the same meaning

By Max Brito · #2547 ·

Re: meeting today

I am considering attending but it appears I'd need an invitation to register... are there any invitations available for SPDX as a Linux Foundation Project that participants can use? karen Karen M.

By Karen Sandler · #2546 ·

841 - 860 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms