We reviewed slides for the Beta Orientation scheduled for Feb 3rd. See minutes and drafts of preso at http://www.spdx.org/wiki/business-team-meeting-agendaminutes-20110120 Kim

Peter> The license of a license file is not necessarily the license defined Peter> in that file. For example, if the file COPYING contains the text of Peter> the GPL-v2 its license should be

Kim, I won't be able to attend the confcall. I read the attached version of the slide, and wonder if we could request some feedbacks and suggestions for improvement (slide 5) about the

We are set for 11amET/8am PT. Call logistics below. We will be reviewing the slides for the Beta Program. I’ve attached my section of the slides here. Call US 866-740-1260 Int'l

(Intentionally cross-posting meeting invite to main mailing list to reach potential audience, although we keep tech discussions on spdx-tech) Just a reminder that the spdx-tech group meets

SPDX Mailing List: This is a heads-up that the Linux Collaboration Summit scheduled for April 6-8, 2011 in San Francisco will include two half-day sessions for SPDX face-to-face meetings. Please

The license of a license file is not necessarily the license defined in that file. For example, if the file COPYING contains the text of the GPL-v2 its license should be Everyone is permitted to

Thanks Jilayne After looking this over, we are pretty well aligned with two exceptions Debian excludes the “.0” on ends of versions (eg Apache-1 instead of Apache-1.0) Debian uses GFDL for GNU

Already got mine in too. Hope to see you all there.

I requested the invitation this morning. Best Regards. Guillaume Le 17/01/11 13:23, Philip Odence a écrit : -- Guillaume ROUSSEAUCEO, Co-Founder, Antelink Président,

The Business and Technical teams will be holding half-day face-to-face meetings at the Collaboration Summit April 6-8. Please consider joining

From the point of view of maintenance of SPDX files, it would be useful to say, in this case: <scott.k.peterson@...> wrote: License: Same as [COPYING] And COPYING License: GPL-v2+ The license

Yes, I would agree with that, Bill. Jilayne From:spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Bill Schineller Sent: Friday, January 14, 20112:50 PM To: Peter

No, I don’t think we should limit the values in “seen in file licenses” to just those which “exact” match the standard header set. Because I don’t think it is reasonable to expect that

I am taking what you refer to as 'how it is used' to be the equivalent of the header information that is included in the file. When making the License List, that column was defined to only being

It seems like there are three possible scenarios for this field: "I looked and found ____" = field propagated "I looked and didn't find anything" = NotSpecified "I didn't even look" = ? field left

Ijust uploaded v1.5 of the License List spreadsheet and accompanyingguidelines/notes document to the SPDX website here: http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list Thisversion reflects adds

Agree. Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct:  (512) 340-1336 Mobile: (408) 499 6850

I vote for best effort of the producer wrote:

<scott.k.peterson@...> wrote: Are we going to define the mechanism for deciding if a bit of text that is not a standard header is a licensing statement? Or is it just the best effort of the