Hi all, In reviewing the SPDX Specification at the Linux Collab Summit face-to-face, the team noticed that there was some inconsistency regarding the use of the terms UNKNOWN, UNDETERMINED, NONE, etc.

All: Below please find a proposed agenda for today's call: (1) Discuss the Technical Workstream's Proposal to "compress" and "eliminate" blank designations in Section 5.3 of the spec. (Section 5.3 is

Revsied license related fields in the spec for review by Thursday evening Hello All, Please find attached, as promised, a revised, redlined version of the most recent spec for the various sections hav

DECLARED LICENSE I understand that Declared License is intended to capture package-level license information. There can be various types of package-level license information: (1) license(s) present as

Kate is correct, I have the Nauman/Naumen spelling mistake and the Python license issue in my queue for the next updated license list. Since it seems that the Python issue is in the works, I'll wait u

I noticed that the license pages include file extensions for licenses on the OSI web site, e.g.: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/simpl-2.0.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sunpublic.php http

The individual license pages include a link to the official location. When there's more than one official location, the URL is not displayed properly. I'm not sure if this is a problem with Gary's too

Updated license list and some other things Hi All, I uploaded a new version (1.10) of the License List to the SPDX site. I have added the new terms, NONE and NOASSERTION with the definitions Kirsten c

License-related spec fields - potential things to discuss on next legal call Hi All, I didn't hear anything back re: the marked up bits of the spec related to the license fields, so I've re-sent it to

All: Below please find a proposed Agenda for today's meeting: (1) Re-confirm Open Data Commons PDDL license for SPDX MetaData (http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/) (2) Discuss Standard Licen

Hi everyone As was mentioned on the call today, I helped found the Open Data Commons project and drafted the PDDL. It is definitely a long text, which I very much can appreciate as feedback, and I'd l

FW: License-related spec fields - potential things to discuss on next legal call ------ Forwarded Message From: Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 16:05:35 -0600 To: "spdx-le

FW: Spec license fields doc -cleaned up Attached is a document with the various license-related fields revised and cleaned up for review by the legal team Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel jlovejoy@

Good catch, Phil! I've changed the address as such. Agreed with Phil's comment below and to add - this is a perfect example of advantage of having "license info in file" and "concluded license" fields

New version of the spec has been posted at: http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification It includes the .pdf, and the .doc file. If anyone wants to do a review pass and look for inconsistencies/ disco

Thanks Amanda. Hi Ciaran, The SPDX team is defintely interested in working together with the other distributions on getting a standard set of names in use. We're certainly open to ensuring that licens

SPDX License List v1.12 uploaded With the following changes: -Naumen spelling fixed -various other shortname typos, etc. -added CeCILL v1.1English - appears this is a revision of the English version o

Python license issue Hi All, I am updating the license list and trying to sort out the Python license naming issue. I thought I'd start a new string with a summary of info gained thus far, since it se

(I've cc'ed Karl at OSI and the OSI license group email, so they are aware of this conversation) Re: Juergen's second point below about having more options than "yes" or blank for the OSI Approved col

All: Since many attendees for tomorrow's normally scheduled SPDX Legal Workstream meeting will be attending the F2F Linux Foundation Member Counsel meeting in Boston, I am moving this week's meeting t