Attached is a document that explains the rationale behind why the Creative Commons Zero license was selected by the SPDX legal working group. The core requirements for consideration were: o does not

We do not discuss or putinto question the FSF and OSI definitions of FOSS (I know them by heart, Iunderstand the philosophy behind them and respect them). We try to make adefinition of what should be

I sometimes skirt the issue by broadly referring "software that is freely available on the web." When one is talking about new projects, picking licenses, and the like, it makes sense to steer/limit

Re: " Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a proper definition of “FOSS”. " The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) are the

Dear Michael The topic we are having here (but will probably move to another forum, potentially the LF Open compliance Program) is to create industry wide accepted common contract clauses for

Michael, for me it is nota subject of discussion I am discussing withthird party companies since 10 years on the subject and if you ignoreopen-source like license or “free proprietary”

Michel and Soeren, The scope of SPDX is to convey information about any kind of software license: open source, "free proprietary" like Sun/Oracle BCL or Oracle OTN, and other

Gentlemen, I think that some of the confusion about email lists is due to the fact that we "deprecated" spdx@... some time past and switched to using list-name@... format. I don't

I agree for thisparticular topic (but it seems I am not part of this mailing list). But I ammore ambitious, I have other initiatives in the pockets: having an open source DBdescribing the foss IP

Feels like this should go to spdx-legal@... and the Subject line should change to indicate the change of subject ? Steve From: <RUFFIN>, "MICHEL (MICHEL)" <michel.ruffin@...> Date: Friday, June 22,

Before answering this, weneed to determine in which group/mailing list we need to discuss this subject,I do not want to bother people not interested by this. Can we continue withSPDX list should we

Hello Michel and others In our standard FOSS contract clauses (which I am willing to share too, once we determined that this (or ftf, or any other network) is the appropriate forum for it) the

As you say (I like the expression) my concern about this license is more like getting an eye brow raised; What does this license implies? If I want to export data from our DB, I will not make it

For the definition of FOSS (free and/or open sourcesoftware (free is for free of cost here)) that we provide it is of course inthe context of a contract negotiation. It is everything that do not go

In response to Michel's initial question about CC-0 (and subsequent responses): Here's some of the back story: This was an issue that the legal work group spent a vast amount of time discussing.

Responses inline below and to this email, since Bradley hit upon several salient issues :) Would agree to the extent that, considering that what Michel is proposing doesn't (yet) seem to have a

(Apologies for falling off this exchange - had some other things come up and am now getting caught up with various responses - lots of great discussion, though!) <michel.ruffin@...>

Michel, Your idea about standard FOSS clauses might fit into the charter of the Linux Foundation Open Compliance Program. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/compliance (To head off

To SPDX General List Members, The legal team is putting final touches on matching guidelines. In case you have not been following, this is your chance to speak up if you see any show-stoppers. The

Hi Marc-Etienne, Responses inline below.... An example implementation of the 1.1 verification code can be found