A big +1 from me. Thank you to all the SPDX contributors and everyone involved in the years-long process of getting the SPDX standard to where it is today, and especially to Kate for her tireless

I’m pleased to announce that SPDX is now ISO/IEC 5962:2021. Many people have worked hard over the last decade to get us to this point. Big credit goes to my Steering Committee colleagues who

Thanks, Phil. Will there be a press release of some sort? And at what point will the project be ready to start accepting member companies? Asking for a friend… --V -- VM (Vicky)

SPDX Community, Minutes: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2021-09-02 As you are aware, in last week’s meeting we discussed a proposal to change the SPDX workgroup’s

Thanks, Sebastian for your thoughts, support and understanding. Regarding licensing, my sense was that your desire to make the spec easy to publish is covered by the proposed licensing scheme.

Dear all, During today's General Meeting, in which the Core Team presented a proposal to improve the governance of SPDX, I brought up a few suggestions to the current proposal. Going into the meeting

We will deviate from our usual standing agenda for this special meeting. We will start with a presentation from a Google Summer of Code student (see topic below) and then will pick up the discussion

Thanks Richard and Jilayne! Yes, in other cases we've seen one LF project become a member of another, for purposes of showing support and furthering collaboration between the projects' communities. In

Hi Richard, I love your forward thinking! First we have to have the review and acceptance of the proposal. Assuming that goes through and as to whether the Yocto Project could

FWIW I've been wondering how we could show a relationship between Yocto Project and SPDX as we are a strong support of it so this looks timely in that regard assuming we'd be eligible as an associate

SPDX Community, As previewed in the June General Meeting, the Core Team has submitted a proposal for changing the governance of SPDX. The reasoning for the change and substance are the same as what

As a follow-up to this morning SPDX general meeting, below is the information on the upcoming SPDX DocFest: The SPDX project will be hosting an initial working "DocFest" to bring together the

This week’s meeting with feature two GSoC presentations. Note I have a conflict so Gary will host. PLEASE: When you sign in, please include your name and company (or put them in the chat) to

We are covering SBOMs today, so perhaps of interest :) Begin forwarded message: From: "Shane Coughlan via lists.openchainproject.org" <scoughlan=linuxfoundation.org@...> Subject: [openchain]

<pombredanne@...> wrote: You really did help, thanks for the pointers and license disambiguation! I think with that in place there is no further need to fix (in project) or track (SPDX) them in

Hi Christian, Thanks for reaching to the SPDX project! As this has purely to do with licenses, it may be better addressed to the legal working group at spdx-legal@.... Alternatively,

Hi Christian: <christian.ehrhardt@...> wrote: I ran scancode-toolkit and the license in base64.c [1] is identified as an ISC alright. The only (IMHO not material) change is the

Hi SPDX, I was refreshing the license info on a Debian package and found two licenses that seemed to be MIT-variants that I wasn't sure about. The reason I looked at it was mostly technical as the

Whoops! https://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2021-07-01 There were several attendees who’s organizations I don’t know. Please let me know and I will amend. Thanks. Phil