Hi Marc-Etienne, I am expecting to have the tools posted for the 1.1 spec by July 9th. We still have a few more items to close on for the spec, so the schedule is subject to change. I'll post a

Hello, The text of Package Verification Code (section 4.7) has been changed from SPDX 1.0 to SPDX 1.1 draft. 1) Does that mean that the algorithm changed or is it just described better? 2) After

Kevin Fleming wrote at 17:05 (EDT) on Friday: I'd suspect strongly that there *is* an arrangement copyright on the arrangement someone makes. I hope SPDX has done something to deal with this

Thank you very much for your quick answer and suggestions. My goal is not only to standardize the legal text of our FOSS clauses. It is also to 1) raise awareness about being able to provide the list

Hi Gary, Thanks, I could download the tools from this page. When is the final SPDX 1.1 expected? I do not, but I will try that. Best regards, Marc-Etienne -- Marc-Etienne

It is not a definite answer, but discussing with our people implementing the spec (marc-Etienne in cc)it seems that the checksums would be usefull to compare package between companies, but I do not

I suspect that it may be at least partially based on the fact that the SPDX file consists almost exclusively of data collected from original sources, and copyright law (at least as I've been told, I'm

It is a excellent question. I have never understood this purpose of this "feature" of SPDX so someone else will have to provide the answer. Peter

I need to think a little bit about it with our lawyers on the potential consequences before answering you. What I want is freedom, to exchange information between companies without constraints. If we

Just to clarify, is it your desire to be allowed to license SPDX files that you produce under terms of your choice? Or are you suggesting that we change the required licensing of SPDX to include a

First I Would like enlighten that when I speak on the SPDX or FSFE mailing list I speak for the Alcatel-Lucent company; I check before with our FOSS executive committee that I can say things (in most

Hi Marc-Etienne, There is a more recent version at http://spdx.org/content/tools This page will become active once the new website is up and running. Let me know if you have any trouble accessing

For what it's worth, you are not alone in wanting to find a solution to this problem :-) The lack of knowledge sharing in the Free Software legal community is disappointing, although the SPDX effort

Michel, I went back and read your previous posts from February on this topic, (as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't follow SPDX closely. I mostly joined this thread (Kibo-like) when the

Dear all, once again on adifferent topic within our current effort in implementing the SPDX standard. Here it is a licensingissue. I am not very comfortablewith the licensing issue for the

Hello, The compiled version et the Java tools in this page: http://www.spdx.org/tools is rather old compared to the source code found in http://git.spdx.org/?p=spdx-tools.git;a=summary Can someone

So Bradley, what is your suggestion for me to try to standardize these FOSS clauses. What organization? I have tried SPDX, I have been advised to go to FSFE legal network. I have join the FSFE legal

RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) wrote today: Actually, I caution against being too quick to move discussion to ftf-legal mailing list, even if a topic seems off-topic for similar, public lists. ftf-legal is

You are right it is FTFE legal network. If I provided our FOSS clause to SPDX it was illustrate the use case, I know that the discussion on this subject should be in FTFE mailing list. By the way

I am on vacation. Kate will fill in for me. Meeting Time: June14, 8am PST / 10 am CST / 11am EST / 15:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html Conf call