Hmmm… I could almost see this being added as a new license altogether or and exception (to BSD-3-Clause). Anyone have strong feelings on whether it should be one or the other? Jilayne

HI All, Having a bit of a hard time following this, as I think Rob may have confused who was speaking on which organization’s behalf (Richard is coming from the OSI perspective, here) Correct me if I’

Richard, Has anyone from OSI gone back to the folks who submitted the “Free Public License” and ask if they mind or care if the name that Rob prefers is used instead of the one they suggested? Seems l

Thanks Richard - that would be great. Let us know what you find out! Jilayne

Having more of a think on this - It may be more appropriate for Rob to talk to the “Free Public License” folks. Rob - your thoughts? Cheers, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@...

Hi All, We have a meeting today at 1pm ET, our last for 2015! As such, we will focus on tying up any loose ends for the v2.3 release of the SPDX License List, which will occur at the end of the month.

Hi All, Please check out the meeting minutes from today, in particular the bit at the end about no meeting on the 24th and the query as to whether we should stick with the same meeting day & time. We

We are not having a meeting in the 24th, Mark! ;) Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity.

That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered. I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License to the same effect on the upcoming release of the SPDX License List. Jilayne

Hi Rob, What I had in mind was: where it says “Note” on this page http://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html, to add something along the lines of capturing the following facts: "There is a license that the OS

Thanks for this, Brad. I’ll make a note to add this to the general topic and proposal in the New Year! Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@...

And available in the usual places: - “human-friendly” web pages: http://spdx.org/licenses/ - master files available here: http://git.spdx.org/?p=license-list.git;a=summary (use 2.3 tag) - info on diff

Hi All, Sam and I were discussing what to include (in the context of an SPDX document or generally for compliance with OSS used in a product) in terms of copyright notices and other “related” text one

Hi Rob, I did not add any explanatory text as per your request. Like you said, we can cross that bridge if/when we get questions. By way of background or reminder for those who don’t know all the hist

Hi All, You should have received a recurring invite for SPDX Legal calls in 2016 beginning tomorrow. If you did not, let me know off-list. Call in 2016 will be at the same bat-time and same bat-channe

Hi Alexios, The markup to Plexus was added for the new release (v2.3) of the SPDX License List. You can see it (indicated by the red text on the HTML page) here: http://spdx.org/licenses/Plexus.html a

HI Oliver, Brad comments below: Good reminder on what the law actually is. I always find it kind of funny that, while this is the legal reality, reproducing the copyright notice is deemed important en

Minutes are here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2016-01-07 Please note we will have a joint call with the Tech Team on Tuesday, Jan 19th during the usual tech team call time to discuss

Hi Camille, In the hopes of trying to tie up some loose ends from 2015, i thought I’d reach out to see if you were able to gain any insight as to this issue. I don’t know if the reference to LGPL-2.0

Hi Harald, I’ve added this to our review for our next legal call on Jan 21. In the meantime, could you please provide us with a little more information about the license? It would be helpful to hear y