HI all, I’ve updated this, including one of Trevor’s additional edit below for the first bullet (the other suggestion you had was the same as I had, but my strikethrough seemed to have gotten lost in

HI all, We have the monthly SPDX General call in about 15’ - this is of special interest to the legal team, as the GSOC student working on the XML translator is presenting! Our bi-weekly legal call fo

I’ve now updated the page further to remove references to the spreadsheet and a few other minor outdated items. I also updated the field names to be more accurate and consistent with what one sees on

One other reminder: The SPDX general call is next Thursday (instead of today, due to holiday in US this week) on July 12th - the guest speaker on that call will be the Google Summer of Code student, T

Hi all, Meeting minutes from last week are posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-28 As per the discussion on updating URLs to licenses that was going on in a couple places

HI David, Thanks for your email. We endeavor to keep identifiers consistent and only change them under very compelling circumstances. The somewhat recent change to using “or-later” as part of the iden

Hi all, We have our regular call shortly - we’ll focus on tying up any loose ends for the next SPDX License List release and any other outstanding issues that need discussion and closing out to that e

Hi all, As discussed on the call today (related to Issue https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/651 ), we will add an explicit statement regarding not duplicating identifiers in the explanation

meeting minutes posted: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-14 Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@...

Thanks both - this and the changes/deprecation of the existing exception will be in the soon-to-be-released v3.2 of the SPDX License List Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@...

We’ll pick up where we left off last meeting! Cheers, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@...

Thanks John! It was a reason like that which I think led to the initial decision. But given that was a number of years ago, we were wondering if such an issue was still relevant today. You have answer

HI Daniel, We discussed this a bit on the call today. The license text itself does not use the * , which is the most important part for matching purposes. How to display this was discussed way, way ba

Hi Kai, Philippe, We discussed this on the legal call earlier. While this is certainly an additional license grant, which Google has added on top of the BSD-3-Clause, we decided it makes sense to add

scratch that bit about attendees - Dennis has sent that info!

HI All, I’ve posted these notes and the proposal to the meeting minutes page for May 3rd here, but I don’t know who else was on the call. Can someone fill that in? https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Tea

Sorry for the late reminder! As for agenda: Update on GSoC project related to legal team work (as applicable) Go through issues tagged with “needs legal discussion” Usual dialin: Web conference: http:

Hi all, I’ve posted the meeting minutes and can sum them up here: We went through all open PRs for 3.1 release and resolved at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML. Tagged anything else for 3.2 or

Mark, Do I understand correctly then, that Amazon created this license? While I understand the rationale (as you explained below), which makes sense and I can see others having a similar goal. But, I’

same time, same channel: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team we’ll look at what needs to be done for the 3.1 release and try to tie those things up during the call. As per my last email: my bandwidt