Hi all, We are aiming to get the 3.21 release out shortly and seem to have a backlog of issues again :( We REALLY need other people to weigh in on license/exception submissions to get to a decision on

Hi SPDX-legal, Please help review and comment on the following license submissions. Keep in mind the license inclusion guidelines at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/DOCS/license-inc

Hi all, Reminder we have our regular SPDX-legal meeting tomorrow at noon US eastern time at https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting As for agenda: 1) We will have Vedant Jolly - our GSoC student working

On 5/24/23 3:18 PM, McCoy Smith wrote: well, what if it was kept as simply as equating things like: This program is in the public domain. This text is in the public domain. This page is in the public

On 5/11/23 7:22 AM, Warner Losh wrote: So, 3(A) and 4 seem effectively the same to me, but adding the identifier in a different place of the spec? Among these options, personally I am leaning towards

On 5/10/23 9:39 AM, Mary Hardy (CELA) wrote: advantage would be avoiding many, many new SPDX identifiers or LicenseRef- for things that are essentially the same or request to add them to the SPDX Lice

I think that would involve more of an analysis that SPDX doesn't want to get in the business of (is my gut thinking) and could be confusing or misleading to use that kind of a tag thanks, good to know

On 5/9/23 12:34 PM, McCoy Smith wrote: do you think there is some analysis we (SPDX-legal) could do to safely lump the similar ones /that have the same legal effect? SPDX is not really in the business

No, we never came to consensus on the "namespace" proposal, as you probably recall. Fedora is just using this really as a placeholder potentially until we could collect some data and then have this di

Thanks for the various feedback on this, everyone! Responding in order... see below On 5/8/23 10:43 PM, Warner Losh wrote: well, yeah, having "public domain dedications" which are not technically lice

I also agree with Alexios' and Steve's comments below! Jilayne On 5/22/23 9:55 AM, Steve Winslow wrote:

Hi all, As many of you are aware, we delayed the 3.21 release due to other priorities, particularly the 3.0 release candidate. Steve and I discussed various scheduling realities and wanted to let you

Thanks Vedant! We are very excited to have you participate in our community! Vedant will be joining the SPDX-legal call on Thursday, May 25th to discuss his proposal, get to know us, and hear any othe

Thanks for the comments! See updates below and additional issues that need attention: another additional markup to BSD-3-Clause: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1827 (I think this is a

Hi all, If we could get some other eyes on the following license requests, that would be great! another Latex2e variation: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1947 - I think this is an eas

Hi SPDX-legal, As mentioned previously, the Fedora hackfest was rescheduled to this coming Wednesday, May 17th. It'd be great to have a couple more SPDX-legal folks there to, perhaps, review-live any

Hi all, Steve sent a reminder on Monday, but in case people missed getting a more typical last minute reminder, we are meeting now! Jilayne

Hi SPDX-legal Some time ago, I raised the issue of the possibility of finding a proliferation of "public domain "dedication" texts in the course of Fedora reviewing package license info to adopt SPDX

Hi all, I’ve added some comments to https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/4 and am looking forward to coming to a conclusion on our first official use of the Change Proposal process at tomorr

Hi all, We/Fedora have rescheduled the ELN Hackfest for Wednesday, May 17th. Same time and meeting info as below. I'll send a reminder a few days out. Sorry for the last minute notice! Cheers, Jilayne