Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Wayne, Simon, <wayne.beaton@...> wrote: The problem with the EDL is that its text is strictly the BSD-3-Clause. The only differences would be: 1. an extra name that may not be

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2145 ·

Re: EDL - Eclipse Distribution License

+1 How can I help make this happen? Wayne -- Wayne Beaton Director of Open Source Projects The Eclipse Foundation

By Wayne Beaton · #2144 ·

“SPDX Legal call” has been updated.

By Jilayne Lovejoy <noreply@...> · #2143 ·

Automated testing of submittals to License-List-XML

I just turned on some automated testing for each commit to the License-List-XML repository. If you submit a pull request or push a change to the repository, you should receive a notification if it

By Gary O'Neall · #2142 ·

Re: New Exception Request:

Since the authors seem to be in the email thread, may I please ask for a version number to the exception(s) ? Experience has shown that texts change and I’d rather avoid the case of W3C,

By Alexios Zavras · #2140 ·

Re: New Exception Request:

Jilayne, Legal Team, and Community: I have added this Exception Request to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 Regards, Dennis

By Dennis Clark · #2139 ·

New Exception Request:

Hi All, I’ve been meaning to send this for review, so hopefully I can make it under the line for the next release. LLVM has been working on a re-licensing project for some time now. They have

By J Lovejoy · #2138 ·

Re: SPDX license identifiers in the Linux kernel

Hi Kate This is tremendous news and great progress. I’ve shared it on social media as well. Regards Shane

By Shane Martin Coughlan <shane@...> · #2141 ·

Artifex v. Hancom reportedly reaches confidential settlement (GPL "Ghostscript" case)

Hi all, No other confirmation yet, but PRWeb is reporting that the Artifex v. Hancom case has settled w/ undisclosed terms. The case had concerned dual-licensed PDF libraries called Ghostscript

By Brad Edmondson · #2137 ·

Re: Request to add OSCAT License to the SPDX license list

Hi Markus, First of all, let me apologize to you on behalf of the SPDX legal working group for taking so long to get back to you regarding the status of your request. It has been a very challenging

By Dennis Clark · #2136 ·

Re: new GPL identifiers

OK, I have no issue with the longer identifiers. The suggestion was only for making it more natural to talk about the licenses, as to not have to explain "we say '3-clause BSD' but write

By Alexios Zavras · #2135 ·

SPDX license identifiers in the Linux kernel

Some of you have already noticed that this started in 2016 but as of 4.14, we had a major breakthrough and cleanup of all the files without a license reference all had SDPX identifiers added to them.

By Kate Stewart · #2134 ·

SPDX ID-tag as part of FreeBSD preferred license

Hi legal-team! As a follow up to the monthly meeting (thanks for the invitation), here is the link to FreeBSD preferred

By Pedro Giffuni <pfg@...> · #2133 ·

Re: meeting today

Jilayne, Legal Team, If we have time, it would be nice to squeeze in a bit of discussion about our process (email vs GitHub etc) for discussing issues, requests, etc. and take a few steps toward

By Dennis Clark · #2132 ·

Re: new GPL identifiers

HI Alexios, I’m not sure why we need to do this, but I am strongly discouraging this further change. We have already been through conversations on this on the calls and with the FSF and came to the

By J Lovejoy · #2131 ·

meeting today

Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we have our regular legal team call today at the usual time, dial-in info here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team The focus of today’s call will be on what

By J Lovejoy · #2130 ·

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

I am not sure what is your use case: for me I tend to always propagate the choices... so my knee jerk reaction would be to say: do not change anything! Here, this is clearly a choice of any of the

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2129 ·

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

Hi Philippe, Thanks for your response. <pombredanne@...> wrote: That sounds fine to me. I'm further wondering - am I allowed to then take the most restrictive of the three for my derivative

By Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...> · #2128 ·

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

Jason: The way I have treated the CRYPTOGRAMS licensing proper in the ScanCode toolkit is a set of rules for a choice of (BSD-3-Clause or GPL-1.0+) or (BSD-3-Clause or GPL-2.0) depending how this

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2127 ·

New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

Hey SPDX, A lot of older OpenSSL code is under the OpenSSL license, but the author also provides it under GPLv2. Great. The SPDX identifier for this is obvious. Faced with the multitude of requests

By Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...> · #2126 ·

1261 - 1280 of 3405

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms