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

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