Hi Kai, I think you are onto the right path in terms of adding the first license and updating our existing Libpng. As to the latter, that would have to be done via matching markup such that the existi

Hi Mark, Philippe, I just had a closer look at this using Alan’s handy License Diff tool, which gave it a close match to MIT-CMU - the only difference between this license and MIT-CMU is: - “and its a

Hi Elmar, It appears that you are still in the OSI review/approval process and as a result the license has evolved a bit. We are tracking it for submission to SPDX here - https://github.com/spdx/licen

https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-01-10 Thanks for everyone for a good call and kick off for 2019. Please note action items at bottom and call for everyone to help with new license su

to note, Donald at FSF has already fixed the identifiers - you can see the blog post online here: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-licensing-compliance-lab-2018-and-the-future :)

Hi all, I hope everyone had some nice time off and enjoyed the holidays. You should have all gotten a recurring invite from Steve Winslow for the 2019 bi-weekly legal calls at 9am Pacific time. Our fi

and yes, I am aware that they listed the SPDX short identifiers incorrectly and have reached out to the FSF asking for a correction. Still good mention in spirit, though! Jilayne

In case some of you are not on the FSF mailing list, SPDX had a nice mention here! :) Jilayne Begin forwarded message: From: "Donald Robertson, III, FSF" <info@...> Subject: FSF Licensing and Comp

Hi all, version 3.4 of the SPDX License List is now live! https://spdx.org/licenses/ You can read release notes here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML I’m really pleased that we got this one d

fair enough. hence, stepping away from keyboard now!

Thanks Mike. I had started another email earlier this morning, but got distracted (ha ha…) by the actual meeting and tying up the 3.4 release, so just sent now. Let me make one thing very clear on a m

I think this is getting closer to the crux, but I also think some terminology and associations of such is getting in the way: there seems to be focus on whether or not the KES is an “exception” or an

Hi all, Today’s meeting minutes have been posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-12-12 We have resolved most of the 3.4 issues and PRs that we could. I’ve also gone through an

to be fair and not to take anything away from Alan’s effort, there is another “hardware company” that has been using SPDX identifiers in its open source software projects for a few years now :) but, t

To be fair to the SPDX community, this hasn’t been discussed here until recently, so I don’t think it’s fair to say the discussion has been going on for so long or that it’s been a year in considerati

Hi all, We are not in what should be the final days of prep for the next release. Looking over the list of issues tagged for 3.4, I’m not sure we’ll realistically get them all over the line, but we wi

Just spotted another project using SPDX identifiers in source file: Western Digital appears to be using them in their newly-released Open Source RISC-V SweRV Instruction Set Simulator https://github.c

Richard, You stated: But, is Red Hat intending on using the SPDX identifier in source files of Red Hat projects that have adopted the project variant or SPDX documents? Jilayne

actually, on that note, if a project did want to adopt GPL-3.0 termination clause for L/GPL-2.0 licensed code (whether a new project or existing project), wouldn’t it make more sense to use the GPL-CC

Somewhat breaking my own rule here, as I don’t really think the details of admissibility or ease of explaining external evidence to a court is really on-topic for the SPDX License List… but since you’