On 11/15/22 12:34 PM, Luis Villa wrote: JL: to be clear, this proposal is about an improved way to capture "exceptions" that are NOT on the SPDX License List, so relevant to the extent that such a hyp

Hi Luis, While I'm barely getting my head around the many complications related to the reality of AI models and data, let alone the related licensing issues... Let me try to answer some of your questi

Hi all, As per our license review protocol, we need 3 SPDX-legal team members to agree to add a license (not counting the submitter). Can we get more people to weigh in on these: https://github.com/sp

Hi all, In light of our discussion on our last call about how to make it easier and faster to get licenses reviewed (and adhere to our 3 “votes” from spdx-legal members for a license to be included),

Hi all, We have our regular meeting Thursday at noon Eastern time. The US set back the clocks this past weekend, so we should be back to the usual time intervals. As we move into the next release cycl

Hi all, I deviated slightly from the plan as discussed at our last call regarding updating the FAQs. I went ahead and made a PR here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/1692 as working in t

Hi folks, We have a regular SPDX-legal call at the top of the hour (noon, Eastern time) at https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting We'll have a look at whatever needs attention to close out our "document

Hi Anna, Welcome! You have interpreted the CC0-1.0 designation and comment regarding confidentiality correctly. (Note, it is now section 6.2 in version 2.3 of the spec: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spe

Please see our first Change Proposal submission from Alexios here: https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/blob/main/proposals/ExceptionRef.md This is a cross-team issue for tech and legal teams. Plea

Hi All, As per our discussion about collaboratively updating the License List FAQ, I created this Google doc, so multiple people can make changes/additions at the same time and review before we move t

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