On behalf of the SPDX RDF Sub-group, I would like to providethe larger SPDX organization a proposal to leverage some of the existing RDFvocabularies. After analyzing several existing vocabularies,

Today's requested agenda items: 1) rdfa/xhtml example - Peter (15 min) 2) Formal proposal to leverage other vocabularies - Gary (15 min) 3) SHA1 usage - Gary (15 min) Today's call dial-in

SPDX Group, Kate has been traveling in Europe and has not been able to free up the time for our meeting on Thursday, so we are pushing for one week. Next meeting will be October 14, 8am PDT/11AM

Today's call dial-in details: (I understand Kate is unavailable) SPDX RDF Sub-group Mtg 5 (TODAY) Tuesday October 5, 11AM eastern time Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada): (877)

I was unaware that OSI has a pattern for this already. I agree we should follow the pattern they have used. That is an excellent point. it seems reasonable to treat the copyright declarations that

* Armijn Hemel <armijn@...> [2010-09-29 20:31]: We used a different mailing list (called package-facts) in the past and decided not to open up those archives to the public since it was

Peter: my 2 cents: the idea is good, though we should not reinvent a license templates syntax when the OSI has alreday done something. They use angle brackets so I would suggest using the same, not

A judgment is always made. Even if the file says "licensed under the terms of the BSD License", you have to decide if you believe that or if you believe they copied the file from a GPL licensed

PErhaps the solution is to have a judgement field, that indicates if the license is matched perfectly, or a decision was made. I also think it would be very useful to extract the license statement of

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