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’

Thanks Dennis for weighing in here. While I generally agree that incorrect use is not a bar to something (if it was, we would have never gotten very far in this project), it does concern me and always

Hi all, I was hoping that others long-standing members of the SPDX legal community would jump in on this thread, but a few days have gone by now and no further discussion, so let me summarize some per

Hi all, I know I just wrote in the minutes that this task was on Richard F, but I was too curious not to have a cursory look myself! Attached is a compare of the project to corporate variant; and of t

Hi all, Thanks for a productive call today. I’ve posted a summary of the discussion in the meeting minutes here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-11-29 Please note: there was general

just realized this only went to Richard. See corrected meeting time/zones below! Begin forwarded message: From: J Lovejoy <opensource@...> Subject: Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday Date: November

Hi all, We’ll be back on our regularly scheduled call tomorrow/Thursday at 9am Pacific time / 11am Eastern time / 5pm Central European time. Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam Optional

Hi all, Just a reminder that we will not have our regularly scheduled call this week, Nov 15th. Have a good week and/or holiday (if you are in the US) and we’ll resume our normally scheduled programmi

I also updated the landing page on the wiki re: “where we work” - see https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team (there was no mention of Github repo before)

Hi all, In light of our discussion today about updates to the CONTRIBUTING file and the process for submitting a new license, I have made proposed changes to the CONTRIBUTING file in a PR here: https:

see: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-11-01 Please note: we will NOT have a meeting on Nov 15th!! We will reconvene on Nov 29th. Thanks, Jilayne

oops, also meant to add: discussion as to adding open hardware and open data to our license inclusion guidelines more explicitly - see: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/719 Yes, I reali

Hi all, We have our call tomorrow at 10am Mountain Time - REMINDER!! I believe Europe has already ended daylight savings/put their clocks back, while here in the US we do that this coming weekend. Thi

That is a really good point, Matija. Qiwihui - can you respond? Are you the author of this license? thanks, Jilayne

Hi Bradley, Are you referring to the remaining issue, as discussed here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618 ? We did change the full names, as I think you raised (e.g., unproved and i