License Meeting Minutes from today are available Hi Everyone Minutes on license meeting are now available on the wiki at the link below. We have a few remaining followups that are being chased down (p

Debian just moved DEP-5 from candidate to draft, so our window to harmonize with it starting to narrow. see: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/01/msg00000.html The spec can be found a

All: - Please note, proposed minutes from our last meeting are posted on the SPDX Wiki under the Legal Workstream section. Sorry for the delay. We will allow an additional week for approval of these m

Licensing/Legal Issues for Beta For the Beta program, there are two additional legal issues I want to raise for the legal team to discuss. What will be the OSS license for the SPDX tools we are provid

Bear in mind that "LicenseInformation" is the Tag which is a short form of the full name, "License Information in File." This longer name was roundly supported by folks on the last Legal Team call, pr

While working on prototyping the spdx license registry i noticed that the full license texts in the spread sheet are not well formatted. Additionally, i some the license texts are incomplete (most of

At the recent SPDX general call, I offered to clarify Python licensing and to suggest standard names. This set of licenses is messy, and a long discussion is below. There is not a single logical answe

(Resend of 2/11/2011 email for today’s SPDX Legal call) At the recent SPDX general call, I offered to clarify Python licensing and to suggest standard names. This set of licenses is messy, and a long

During the discussion this morning regarding license templatization a question came up regarding the exact purpose of templatization. This question was not answered satisfactory so hopefully the full

minor point to whomever is current keeper of license list: identifier GFDL-1.2 appears twice in http://spdx.org/system/files/spdx_licenselist_v1.6.xls cell B70 should instead be GFDL-1.1 Bill Schinell

I am updating the SPDX Tools source code to use the Apache 2.0 License. In addition to a NOTICE and LICENSE file, I plan on including the following text in all source files. Since we are not contribut

You can disregard my last request – I found the correct template below: Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this

Agenda Legal WorkStream 23-March-2011 (1) Re-Report SPDX Tools License Conclusion - Apache 2.0 (2) Revised Section 5.3 into Beta Spec. (3) SPDX Metadata StrawMan: (a) - Need for SPDX Metadata Author/C

Ths comment is NOT about what the normalization should be or what equivalences should be permitted. Rather, I suggest a different approach to how we represent the result of the agreed upon normalizati

I think it is going in the right direction. You should look at the way Ninka normalizes test for in-file licenses (BSD, MIT, etc). For the BSD and MIT variants the problems are not only spelling, but

License List v1.7 uploaded to wiki (finally) With a few minor changes and the ‘.0’ put back in the short names. This should be (close to?) the final first version... Find it here: http://spdx.org/wiki

Hi Martin, In the SPDX tech face to face meeting we discussed adding the license information to the spdx website at spdx.org/licenses. Attached is the output of a tool that converts the license spread

FYI all ... Begin forwarded message: From: "Copenhaver, Karen" <kcopenhaver@...> Date: April 14, 2011 6:32:19 AM PDT To: "E. A. Rockett (rockett@...)" <rockett@...> Subject: FW: SPDX and Support More

All: For today's meeting I propose we: (1) focus on the "meta-data confidentiality/licensing" issue, and any feedback/reaction from your independent review of Open Data Commons PDDL 1.0 (http://www.op

All: As discussed during yesterday's call, below please find links for your review. Many thanks, Rockett ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Copenhaver, Karen <kcopenhaver@...> Date: Wed, Ap