Dear team(s), was great hearing you again on the call yesterday. I see there is renewed interest in this topic and I dearly hope we can push it forward to whatever conclusion, so REUSE can finally imp

Die 6. 04. 22 et hora 01:07 J Lovejoy scripsit: To my understanding of the spec the following should indicate full copyright: `SPDX-License-Identfier: NONE` <https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/file-info

Die 28. 11. 21 et hora 05:26 Luis Villa scripsit: I was thinking in the same lines of a ($“pd” OR $license) solution. It does make things more complicated than just $license, but if there is actual ne

Die 16. 08. 21 et hora 19:10 J Lovejoy scripsit: I don’t have much to add to what has been said so far, but just want to add a big fat +1 on everything said so far. cheers, Matija

Die 14. 11. 20 et hora 00:35 Gary O'Neall scripsit: Makes sense to me. Another option could be to simply store the timestamp of when the license was suggested/added instead. That one we can be at leas

Die 13. 11. 20 et hora 15:48 Steve Winslow scripsit: Having it as an additional link makes sense to me. I mentioned it because as soon as you have original URL and a timestamp, you can simply generate

Die 13. 11. 20 et hora 09:19 Alexios Zavras scripsit: If I understand the thread correctly, I agree with Alexios and would add that esp. the plain text versions are used not just for tooling to match,

Die 13. 11. 20 et hora 07:15 Gary O'Neall scripsit: Would it make sense to equip it with an Internet Archive link then? cheers, Matija

Die 19. 06. 20 et hora 03:00 J Lovejoy scripsit: FWIW, another lawyerly +1 on Till‘s analysis from me. […] This is why REUSE <https://reuse.software> requires the license texts to be stored with SPDX

I suspected as such, yes. I did check the OSI list when I stumbled upon it. Ideally I would like to have it deprecated (also on OSI), but note would work as well. Thanks for looking into this. I didn’

Hi, I just stumbled upon Entessa for the first time in real life, and upon checking it with both FOSSology/Monk and SPDX License Diff, I can’t see how it qualifies as a separate license, instead of a

I would say that CCM would be the best way to go right now, as David Wheeler already explained in detail before. Unless someone knows of a better commonly used/tested suggestion for a public domain ma

You’re correct. Lapsus calami due to writing before finishing my morning tea. CC0-1.0 marks it that whatever that thing is, its author either waives all their rights, or if they can’t do that (e.g. in

Just to clarify … your question is solely about marking your own works – i.e. stuff that if it were copyrightable, you would hold copyright it? If so, I would still suggest marking it with CC0-1.0 as

Hi Richard, I think both your possibilities work, and with the current state of art, I would agree with Kate, Jilayne and Gary. On the other hand it seems to me that exactly how to mark source code is

Depends on the license (e.g. CC licenses) and jurisdiction (moral rights), I’d say. So if someone really wanted to start a stink, they might use. But you’re right, this is wider than just attribution,

garysourceauditor@... wrote: I can see how this could work in the sense where we are using packages. But it also seems like quite a tooling-heavy approach. If I understand you correctly, this wo

Hi all, recently I’ve been thinking about how to store¹ additional notices that are required by some licenses on the SPDX license list. Specifically reference to the origin of the work, and notice of

A big round of applause for Karen’s well-deserved retirement, both Steve’s and Jilayne’s new positions, and, of course huge kudos for all the work all four of you have put into SPDX! cheers, Matija Šu

Die 1. 06. 19 et hora 00:58 Dave Marr scripsit: I agree. Although the question still remains what constitutes a popular license – does a non-FOSS license that is also not used by any substantial numbe