First, let me be a pain in the neck and suggest we should move this discussion to the spdx-legal list. We've committed to limiting this general list to more summary information and less real work. My

I brought this up because it is a new signature in FOSSology and I'd like the name to be as close to the SPDX guidelines as possible. I really like Daniel's method of identifying disjunctive

Hi Juergen, Thanks for pointing out the errors. I believe this is a known encoding error which should be fixed when we next update the licenses. This will be fixed on the next update. We don't

Hello, Ciaran Farrell said on Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:35:01PM +0200: Just for completion (and maybe discussion with them), I attended a session at the latest Solutions Linux in Paris, where a project

Daniel, et al. By "KDEupgradeClause" you are referring to the previous posts re: KDE reserving the right to decide on post-v3 versions of GPL as well, is that right? I suppose from the standpoint of

Hi Bob, Scott, Jilayne, Armijn, Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote: We (as in Ninka) decided to consider this a (GPLv2 | GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause). It can also be considered: (GPLv2 | GPLv3

Because KDE e.V. is a German non-profit and its members like to have endless meetings ;-) Kidding aside, this license change came a few years ago because they went through a lot of pain when they

This is the way I read it as well. However I don't know why they wouldn't just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your option) any later version..." which seems completely

doh! Thank you and Armijn for straightening me out. So would a reasonable license name be "GPL-2+-KDE" ? Bob Gobeille

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later. THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!) As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is

I've never heard of GPLv2.1, but if you mean LGPLv2.1, the KDE project has a similar license for that too. Basically this license says: "KDE e.V. currently only approves GPLv2 or GPLv3, but if the

I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the name would be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't,

Firefox diagnostics are misleading here. We have https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=655661 for this. The SPDX pages are served with mime-type application/xml, but entities are used that are

Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell@...> wrote: ... I am not sure who manages this page, but http://spdx.org/licenses/ISC and some others cannot be displayed on my firefox as they give a xml parsing

Ciaran Kate Stewart is the Chair of SPDX and represents Canonical on this. I have asked her to respond to this and would be pleased if you could please keep both of us on the thread. All the

Hi, before LinuxTag 2011 I sent around invitations to this workshop "Cross Distribution Licensing Summit": http://is.gd/7GF9Ar (linuxtag.org) Some of you indicated that you would not be able to

Hi SPDX-team! I just downloaded spdx_lienelist_v1.11.ods and spotted this Naumen Public License Nauman http://www.opensource.org/licenses/naumen.php I figure the short name should say

Meeting Time: May 19, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 15:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html Conf call dial-in: Conference code: 7812589502 Toll-free dial-in number

Hi Peter, Thanks for the clarifications. I am going to have a closer look at it again. I might have been working on a slightly outdated version of your specification though. When reading through, I

Hi Mario, Thanks so much for reviewing these documents. This sort of feedback is very helpful. It might also be useful to look at <http://spdx.org/rdf/terms>. This is the formal OWL ontology for