Ah! Great point, Philippe, I forgot about that important detail in Sec. 9 of the GPL. In which case, my first scenario - that the oldest GPL/LGPL "or later" license on our list - would apply where no

Thanks! imho we should have support for both GPL and LGPL there. Note that I think that the + there is misleading. its means "or later" elsewhere and here it means "any version". I would rather go

HiAll, I’vejust uploaded v1.6 of the License List. This reflects the followingchanges: - License Identifiers (short names) updatedto be consistent with Debian short names - No

Just a reminder that the spdx-tech group meets on Tuesdays at 16:00 GMT (8:00AM Pacific Time, 11:00 AM Eastern Time).  Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada): (877) 435-0230; International

Right now it is: "GPLv2 or GPLv3, but we might add more licenses if the members of KDE e.V. choose to do so". For those of you who don't know: KDE e.V. is the German non-profit that handles all the

Interesting. This would get handled as a "non-standard" license for now. Kim

Armijn called my attention to the following license (part of Amarok): Notice how the "upgrade" option allows for licenses other than the FSF approved, hence this file is not GPLv2+ only, but

Hi everyone! I sent the following invite to all of the people that have expressed an interest in being a Beta site. All SPDX members are welcome to attend as well. This orientation will be held

Meeting Time: January 27, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 16:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html Conf call dial-in: Conference code: 7812589502 Toll-free dial-in number

Perhaps we stick with the version of MIT that is listed at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php as a way to include this license in the standard list -- it is too commonly used to

Delurking ... This is rather contrary to our experiences at Red Hat. We've encountered fascinatingly numerous language variants on the MIT/X11/Expat license family in the wild (though you might want

- Regarding the MIT license. This is a VERY well-established license, #4 on the Black Duck site, is listed in expected form the OSI site, etc. I have not seen variants other than the

Thanks, Tom. Do you (or anyone on thelist) have any thoughts on the 3 items highlighted in yellow below? Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel jlovejoy@... 720 240 4545 | phone 720 240

Hi Jilayne, On the legal call today I offered to do a last look at the Debian / SPDX license name differences. I agree with Kim: The exclusion of “.0” in cases where the license

** For SPDX Legal WorkStream ** As a means to drive comments/redlines, below please find were we left off in the last SPDX Legal Workstream Call for the following Sections. Many

(Intentionally cross-posting meeting invite to main mailing list to reach potential audience, although we keep tech discussions on spdx-tech) Today's spdx-tech call will be at 4pm Eastern

I upgraded some components of our web site today. If you notice any problems, please let me know. -- Martin Michlmayr Open Source Program Office, Hewlett-Packard

Hi Guillaume Please feel free to send any feedback via email to the spdx-biz@... list. We would love to have you participate in the Beta. We will be doing a Beta Orientation on Thursday, Feb 3 (in

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