I added 2 bugs in bugzilla: - Bug 811 -Produce an archive of license texts for SPDX licenses - Bug 812 -Add a column to the index of licenses to indicate if a license is OSI

I have a conflict and will not be able to join, however Kirsten will do a fine job chairing in my absence.. Meeting Time: June 2, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 15:00 UTC.

agreed. -- Motorola Inc. E.A. Rockett Senior Counsel Software, Applications & Digital Content Licensing (408)541-6703 (O) (408)541-6900 (F) (415)508-7625 (M) rockett@...

Hi Martin, it will also help to have a simple tar file with all the licenses, each in its own file, and without the HTML tagging. Basically, the actual text of the license. --dmg --

Jilayne - lets discuss at your convinence. (today if possible) Rockett

* Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@...> [2011-05-26 10:25]: Jilayne, are you the right person to take care of this? Gary, is this something you can add to your tool? -- Martin

See my blog post on the subject: http://www.spdx.org/content/celebrate-small-victories-and-cheers-open-source-initiative

Martin Michlmayr <tbm@...> wrote: Thank you! BTW: Could you add a OSI tag to http://spdx.org/licenses/CPL-1.0? This license is superceeded but it is used for the korn shell and other AT&T

* Gary O'Neall <gary@...> [2011-05-25 18:05]: I've put the update in place now. However, the issues pointed out by Juergen and Joerg are different to the known issue. I've fixed

[ adding Debian relevant people for DEP5 & preserving all extra needed Cc:-s mentioned in the thread thus far (I hope :)) ] Agreed, of course. A small clarification is needed here. Actually DEP5

http://spdx.org/licenses/ISC and error. Confirming this problem for Firefox 4.0.1

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