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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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 |

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

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

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

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

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,