Attendees: Scott Lamons (host) Gary O'Neall Kamyar Emami Phil Odence Pierre Lapointe Michael Herzog Jilayne Lovejoy Steve Cropper (joined later) Agenda/Notes 1. Linuxcon (Panel, Working

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 20:48 (PDT) on Wednesday: Thanks! -- -- bkuhn

It already did actually say this, but the wording was a bit awkward and the email address was not hyper-linked, so I have fixed both. Jilayne >

I wrote: Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 13:04 (PDT) on Friday: Can you show me examples of software packages that use GPLv2-only-with-GCC-Exception? I'm amazed to learn that there's a package that uses it.

If there is no url, then there is no url - just state this. However, in this scenario, I would simply include the two you mention above. The field need not have only one url (e.g. For licenses that

Philip Odence wrote at 11:52 (EDT) on Thursday: FWIW, I looked at this possibility briefly. Upon reading http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added I came to the

http://www.spdx.org/wiki/20120712-general-meeting-minutes Attendance: 7 Technical Team Report - Kate 2.0 work Still working through use cases 1.1 work Still under revision but near

Apologies, but I seem to have misplaced my notes from the last meeting and never posted the minutes. I'm truly baffled as I am generally pretty well organized along this dimension. Meeting Time:

Great, Bradley. When I find someone who will *do* that work, we will definitely ask for you input! - Jilayne

<peter.williams@...> wrote: Agreed. In this general forum we've heard that the existing SPDX license list approach does not meet the needs of Linux distributions (in the case I raised,

Is that really the best choice? This issue seems to be cross functional issue in that it concerns both the license list and the technical details of representing license data in SPDX files (and in the

Polite request: Could we shift this discussion off of the General Meeting list and onto the Legal Team list only? TThis is GREAT discussion for the legal team. This is not a big problem, but I want to

Bradley, See spec http://www.spdx.org/system/files/spdx-1.0.pdf on pages 23-24. There's a section in an SPDX file called Other Licensing Information Detected to handle licenses not on the standard

As long as the licenses are - Carefully named and vetted for exact license text - Somewhat broadly applicable (“somewhat broadly” is fuzzy, but we do want the list to

SPDX files don't require that the licenses they refer to be present in the "SPDX License List". The license that you find in a source file can be represented on its own in the SPDX file. The primary

FWIW, one of our FOSSology contributors (thank you Camille) put together a spreadsheet (HarmonisationLicenseIDs.ods) highlighting the differences between the fossology license list and the SPDX

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 16:05 (EDT) on Wednesday: I'm not clear on what the value of SPDX's license list unless it's comprehensive. Can you explain how SPDX is still useful if the licenses for

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 16:02 (EDT) on Wednesday: IMO, "implementing" is trivial. The tough part is careful cataloging to know *what* to add to the list. For example, obviously, no one did the work

No, of course not. There are simply too many licenses which almost exactly correspond to existing, known licenses. It is the 'almost exactly' that raises the issue. If all of these were to be included

Do you expect the SPDX License List to cover every license you find? Does any list? It would be great to align your list with the SPDX List (and make sure the short identifiers are consistent, as the