Hi all, Thanks Till for weighing in here! I think there are two general issues that come up here: (a) A technical question: When generating SPDX data at the file level, how does one identify the LICEN

Hi all, We’ve been doing quarterly releases for new SPDX License List versions on a calendar quarterly basis. We adopted this some time ago (before using Github) to provide some expectation and reliab

Hi Andrew, Great! FYI - this email got moderated because you are not on the mailing list with this address. I have unmoderated you, but would be best if you could join the mailing list or use the emai

Hi all, The SPDX legal team has its regular bi-weekly call tomorrow, Thursday at noon, Eastern Daylight Savings time (note: The US moved our clocks forward, but I believe the UK and Europe has yet to

Hi Kyle, Thanks for having a look. As to your question: we had a discussion on one of the many calls we discussed this topic and ran the hypothetical of what if there were no “rules” or the rules were

Philippe, Did you actually read the proposed draft? It’s has more clarity as to key and practical aspects we already look for (e.g., stable license text) and relaxes the must-be-free requirement we ha

Hi all, I’m sending this to both the legal and general mailing lists to ensure greatest visibility. The legal team has come up with a final draft of the license inclusion guidelines based on various c

Hi Matija, Hmm… I thought we had put a Note in Entessa explaining this, but apparently not. Perhaps there is another case like this that I am thinking of: The reason we have Entessa on the SPDX Licens

Hi all, I just merged that PR - we had a bunch of comments and figured it’d be easier to have a clean iteration to look at for the meeting. Please see: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/ma

oh geez, sorry all - Steve already pointed you all to that discussion! I missed that URL - my bad!

Hi all, Going back to Michael’s original post as seems like we got on a tangent regarding CC public domain mark (which seems like an easier discussion). I think we need to be clear on what we are talk

(I know, I’m on a roll - last email from me today!) There is an SPDX room available co-located and after the event for the LF Member Summit in Lake Tahoe. The SPDX meeting will be Friday afternoon, th

Hi all, As many of your are aware, we have discussed revising the license inclusion principles over the last part of 2019 - in various calls and distilled in this issue: https://github.com/spdx/licens

Hi folks, I made some updates to some of the documentation files in the Github repo today related to some conversation on the call. Would love to have some feedback. See: https://github.com/spdx/licen

Hi all, Due to the end of the year craziness many of us are experiencing and resulting low-turnout at recent meetings and on the mailing list, we are going to call it for the year and reconvene (with

Agree. And also agree with Richard’s comment about avoiding legal interpretations. When you say that the license is “X AND Y” you are saying both licenses apply. Which is the fact for this file. You a

Hi all, Due to some unforeseen circumstances, both Steve and I are not available tomorrow. Given this would be our last meeting for 2019 (unless people wanted to meet on Dec 26th?), I'd like to postpo

Thanks Mike - responses below! Yes, I think this is how it has been set up in the PR - as it’s own Appendix and .md file, so one can refer to it separately there. I suppose we could change links to po

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, Some time ago, we decided to move the Matching Guidelines to an Appendix in the SPDX specification, instead of only having them live on a webpage (here: https://spdx.org/

better late, than never... I really wouldn’t conflate attribution and copyright notices - that seems to lead to a lot of unnecessarily confusion and other energy FWIW - this reminded me that there are