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

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

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.

I'll be at the conference -- hoping to be able to attend the SPDX face-to-face on Monday, but I may have another governing board meeting that overlaps that afternoon and might not be able to make it.

Thanks you both! We adopted the Plexus name as category. Problem solved. Kind regards, Max

in an hour - we’ll pick up where we left off from last call! https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team Also: please note - the Open Source Leadership Summit is coming up in Half Moon Bay, March 12-14 -

Thank you Gary and Kate. I’ve reviewed the minutes, and look forward to discussing the topic. As you may guess, my strong basis is towards self-assigned DNS-based namespace with optional

Not to unnecessarily self-promote, but this was the use case that made me write the SPDX-License-Diff chrome extension. https://github.com/spdx/spdx-license-diff. It also should work on Firefox (but

I think you should look at "Plexus": https://spdx.org/licenses/Plexus.html We even have a note that covers Dom4j 😊 -- zvr –

Hello, I keep stumbling on the Dom4J license categorization. Some people/groups label it as "BSD-style", while others argue this is an Apache-1.1 variation. The license terms:

Hi Sebastian, That's pretty much where we ended up on the call. LicenseRef-<namespace>-<shortform> We also ended up discussing where SPDX documents with these LicenseRef's could be defined, so

Hi Philippe, [G.O.] Good point on the license expressions. Including the URI expression in the license expression would make it difficult to parse. I suggest we separate this into 2 proposals.

Hi Mark: We surely could use a way to have namespaces of sorts for extra, non SPDX-listed license identifiers. This is something that I could use alright for ScanCode where we track roughly an extra

+1 on Kate’s proposal of pre-pending the ID with license-ref – It would make the ID’s backwards compatible. Gary

Hi Mark, I like the notion of using the DNS names being IDN as a way of prefixing this. We have the mechanism of "LicenseRef-" as a reserved prefix already for any id not on the SPDX license

Just following up, does anyone have any comments or suggestions for my proposal for SPDX Private License Identifiers?

Since these will be "private" (which I understand to simply mean "not in the official list"), why don't we simplify our lives and use URLs for naming as well? SPDX-License-Identifier:

HI Mark, I like the idea of a DNS naming approach to the private license identifiers. It neatly solves the namespace issue. Rather than having a URL pointing to the canonical license text, I wonder

I would like to propose a syntax for SPDX "Private License Identifiers". SPDX short identifiers and SPDX-License-Identifier declarations in source code and in compliance documents have proven to be

+1 ! Dave