Two more things about the zlib example: 1. The license of the ada subdirectory is GPLv2+ not, GPLv2. 2. There is another interesting example, which is labelled BSD-3 in the SPDX. Same issues

In my opinion, the problem with allowing "user judgement" in included license variability can lead to disagreements of what a license really is, or even worse, misunderstanding of what the license of

I completely agree. I think anyone that has actual tried to analyze a package for copyright/license info knows that a lot of judgment calls are required. I would say that as license(A) =

Thanks Peter for your clarifications. I think this shows, that the ones creating the files will be _making_ decisions. In this case, several have been made: 1. Files without a license share the

In <https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/2010-September/000116.html> dmg brought up and interesting question regarding how similar two license texts need to be before they can be

We assume any that file that does not contain explicit license info and does not match any of the open source in our database is licensed under the declared license of the project. In this case the

Done L. Philip Odence Vice President of Business Development Black Duck Software, inc. 265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile:

As per the discussion during Friday's License call, I typed up a guideline/description of what should/should not be included in the License Notes field on the License List: License Notes field

A name change would be an improvement. I see your point about not complicating navigation for existing participants. However, having a top level page that basically free of content, as the

Peter, I'm responsible for the hierarchy, so I'll weigh in. I'd rather change the name to "Getting Started" or something like that (if it's the "Guidelines" that bothers you) rather than moving it. I

Does anyone object to moving the content of <http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/participation-guidelines> to the main participation page, <http://www.spdx.org/node/2240>? A page named "guidelines" seems

This is good. It can start some discussion on the standard. First, one question: I scanned the file for zlib and I found some issues with it, but I think are worth discussing: 1. Some files do not

Actually I was replying to Peter's question. I guess that your mail client might not have shown that it was a reply. But, to actually make it a question: is there an archive available of the period

Sweet, thanks. I added a link to the participation guidelines page in the wiki. Hopefully one more link will make google pick it up. Peter

Armijn, Now that you have appeared in the NY Times with a Boston Red Sox hat http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/26ping.html?src=busln, I feel I must respond quickly. There are a number of

https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/ armijn -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn@... || http://www.gpl-violations.org/

Is the spdx mailing list archived anywhere? I was looking to read up on the past debate around a particular part of the spec and I was unable to locate an archive of the mailing list. It is crucial

I moved it to Home » Wiki » Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) » Spec Development » Sandbox For Sharing Examples, Ideas, Etc. Not sure if it way my knowledge or permissions or both, but

Hi all, I have posted some examples, along with some notes about them at <http://spdx.org/wiki/openlogic-spdx-10-beta-examples>. The examples are intended to conform to the 1.0 beta version of the

Colleagues, Sorry for sending out the call-in details late. The call will be at the usual Tuesday time the RDF subgroup has been meeting the last 3 weeks. We'll be discussing mechanism for