spdx@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Philip Odence · #710 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Tom Incorvia · #709 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@...> · #708 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Bob Gobeille · #707 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by 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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #706 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #705 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Ciaran Farrell · #704 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

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

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #703 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

(I have included the legal list on this response) This has been discussed a couple times and part of this issue is listed as a "to-do" on the legal

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #702 ·

Thursday SPDX General Meeting Reminder

A few upfront items: At the end of Thursday's meeting Ibrahim Haddad from the Linux Foundation will brief us on the recently announced Barcode Tracker and will explain how complementary it is with

By Philip Odence · #701 ·

FOSS term for contracts

"Possibly" is not a term you want to use in a contract because it means something and its contrary. For instance we had problems of defining the i) definition of FOSS-for-contracts (I put the

By RUFFIN MICHEL · #700 ·

Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33

Good one!

By Philip Odence · #699 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

Ciaran Farrell wrote at 15:45 (EDT) on Saturday: This is interesting; I'd suspect this might be the case for other distributions, too. Debian, for example, basically has always kept a full text file

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #697 ·

Re: FOSS clauses for contracts & fora for discussing it (was Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network")

Hi Everyone, I just got back from europe. Please give me a couple days to catch up on my email and I will reply early next week. Ibrahim

By Ibrahim Haddad <ibrahim@...> · #698 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

To chime in on this, at openSUSE we have exactly the problem described above - we'd like to adopt SPDX, but the license list does not provide anywhere need the coverage that we need. What we've done

By Ciaran Farrell · #696 ·

Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network"

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 20:01 (EDT) on Thursday: I agree that trying everywhere makes sense for what Michel is trying to do, since, as others have pointed out, there's no clear venue for

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #695 ·

Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX

In so far as Phil and Michael's previous comment regarding the SPDX License List – it is correct to say that we have endeavored to include the most common open source licenses (not freeware,

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #694 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

I could not agree more. Rest assured, this has been discussed and there was very vociferous and unanimous agreement that the short identifiers should not change once created. So far, I believe we

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #693 ·

Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33

How about "Possibly Licensed Unpaid Software" - PLUS ?! Then we can have FOSSPLUS :)

By Mahshad Koohgoli · #692 ·

Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33

How about: "Possibly, Might-be free Software" (PMS) :) -Debbie

By McGlade, Debra · #691 ·

981 - 1000 of 1690

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms