Hi all, We have our regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow at 10 am mountain time (aka 9am Pacific time / noon eastern time). As we draw close to the end of this release cycle, let’s take an honest look

Thanks Richard, that’s helpful to point out! That and Steve’s point re: Debian Main makes me think we’d need to be somewhat specific for each distro that would trigger a lighter-weight review. More to

Hi David, Off top of head, I’m not sure if any AI-specific license have been submitted in the past but one of the RAIL licenses has just been submitted recently. It had not been reviewed yet but any l

Hi all, I just made a new issue to capture this, but wanted to raise it here for broader discussion. If we say that all OSI-approved are included on the SPDX License List, would we want to extend this

Hi all, From our last call, the subject of 'when can people start using short ids? ‘ came up. This has been asked before on individual license submissions and we have answered informally, but it might

Hi again, Now that 2.3 is out, this question is more pertinent: Note, if I want to link to a specific part of the SPDX spec, I can find it via the HTML format, for example: https://spdx.github.io/spdx

Dear SPDX community, As mentioned on a couple of the general calls some time ago, the Steering Committee has been working on a Change Proposal template and process to facilitate communication, priorit

Hi all, As per our discussion on our call going through updates to the online license submission tool, I was going to make an issue summarizing the proposed changes. Instead, I got inspired that I mig

Hi Sebastian, Ah, so the script would run and thus, the message appear when the issue is close (not when the 'accepted' label is added). This comment would essentially be like manually making a "comme

Hi Richard, We have a list of "equivalent words" which was created early on to accommodate different spellings for the same words, e.g., license v. licence - see https://github.com/spdx/license-list-X

Hi all, As per our “documentation release” - we are aiming to review licenses that don’t need legal discussion via Github issues. As per our guidance on license review, if "3 SPDX-legal team members (

really, McCoy, you are not going to suggest https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause-Patent.html ?!? Don’t be coy now… :) (McCoy drafted that license, for those who are not aware.) J. > > > > > >

Hi Warner, McCoy, You both raise some good points which has made me realized I should clarify this topic a bit: First, yes, some "public domain dedications" or things that are similar-ish are already

Thanks Richard, that's interesting. I'm really surprised Yocto only ran into one example of this kind of thing though!

Thanks for the quick responses, Steve and Mike! I should have been more clear on what I needed input on ASAP - which was, a) what info would be helpful to collect (now) about any public domain dedicat

Hi SPDX-legal, I have raised this a couple times in the past few months or so, but now that it is more of a "ripe" topic, I wanted to get some input on preliminary ideas: Background: Fedora has now of

Hi all, Just a last minute reminder of our regular call today at the top of the hour. As mentioned previously, for the next release cycle (through end of Sept) we are going to focus on updating and im

Hi all, On our call a few days ago, Steve raised the idea of using the next release to JUST focus on documentation improvements. There haven’t been a ton of new license requests and some of the docume

Hi all, I just went through all the issue in terms of what we can likely get in for the 3.18 release. Seems like most issues are already assigned to Steve or I :) Could someone pick up this one and pr

Hot off the press! Link to blog post of this here: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/important-changes-to-software-license-information-in-fedora-packages-spdx-and-more/ Thanks for the support on