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

Hi all, Just a quick reminder that the SPDX-legal call will be at the top of the hour. We'll focus on what tasks can be completed for the next release and, if there's time, I have an update on Fedora

Hi Max, Given the evolution of the SPDX Specification format(s) - that is, it was mainly in .pdf form for most of the past versions, I’d say that if you want to refer to a specific version, I’d use th

(cross-posting to tech and legal team, as I suspect others may be interested) Hi SPDX-tech team, I just wanted to confirm my understanding of the various formats we now have for the SPDX specification

Hi McCoy, I’m wondering if you are trying to adapt SPDX identifiers in a situation not anticipated. Consider that aim of an SPDX document (as per the SPDX specification, and thus, using SPDX license i

Hi Richard, Annex D explains the order of precedence for the operators and use of parentheses. https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/SPDX-license-expressions/ I admit, I find the use of parentheses easier

Hi all, We have our regularly schedule call tomorrow/Thursday at noon US eastern time. After a bit of a hiatus, we’ll get back to our usual order of business. Please have a look through the current is

Hi all, Again, this conversation belongs on the SPDX-legal mailing list, not the SPDX-general list. I tried to remedy this early on, but somehow SPDX-legal got dropped and it went back to SPDX-general

Hi McCoy! I’m moving the SPDX-general list to BCC and replying to SPDX-legal as that is the right place for this discussion. Where is this question coming up in terms of context? That is, are you thin

Hi all, With a conference going on and end of quarter, we’ll skip our call this week. Please have a look at any open GitHub issues in the meantime! Jilayne Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity an

(removing general mailing list and adding spdx-tech) David, A few clarifications below: Btw, you are not a member of the spdx-legal mailing list, so these emails keep bouncing. Could you please join i