spdx@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

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

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

By Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@...> · #650 ·

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

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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #649 ·

TR: SPDX standard: files are placed in public domain

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

By RUFFIN MICHEL · #648 ·

Compilation of SPDX tools

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

By Marc-Etienne Vargenau · #647 ·

Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX)

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

By RUFFIN MICHEL · #646 ·

Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX)

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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #645 ·

Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX)

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

By RUFFIN MICHEL · #644 ·

Thursday SPDX General Meeting Reminder

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

By Philip Odence · #643 ·

Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX)

Armijn Hemel replied: I'm sorry; you're right; I inadvertently added an "E". I was thinking of FTF-legal, which does exist: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/ftf-legal Indeed, I should

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #642 ·

Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX)

You are indeed correct, Bradley. That was a function of sloppy and quick typing on my part and should have really referred to it as the European Legal Network (facilitated by FSFE) to be perfectly

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #641 ·

Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX)

There is no such thing as "FTFE-legal". You might be referring to the European Legal Network. Information about it can be found here: http://fsfe.org/projects/ftf/network.en.html armijn --

By Armijn Hemel <armijn@...> · #640 ·

Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX)

Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: Just for clarification: the FSF doesn't have a legal network, to my knowledge. I believe you are likely referring to the highly secretive entity called FTFE-legal, which

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #639 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

Thanks Michel. This does describe the use case. I think this is an excellent discussion on which use cases require which fields. For the use

By Gary O'Neall · #638 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

Right, and this is what the package checksum was intended to solve. If you have that, then no matter where you go the source archive, you can confirm (with nearly 100% confidence) that it has the some

By Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@...> · #636 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

Dear Michel I find your idea utmost interesting and would like to discuss it in further (sorry that I did not react earlier. Due to my recent transfer to EU with major expansion of job

By Soeren_Rabenstein@... · #637 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

Well, today we solve more or less this issue by requesting the URL where the FOSs can be downloaded, so URL + name + version number determine the FOSS used. It is not perfect but I never manage a good

By RUFFIN MICHEL · #635 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

So far our FOSS clauses are not aligned on the SPDX standard (we are already happy when suppliers can comply to our requirements without too much discussion so we did not formalize things too

By RUFFIN MICHEL · #634 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

Agreed, and this is pretty much what I just posted in another reply before having read yours :-) -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies Jabber: kfleming@... |

By Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@...> · #633 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

I'm curious how you see this working. As I posted on the other SPDX list yesterday, I find the package-level metadata to be mandatory in order to have a high degree of trust in the rest of the

By Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@...> · #632 ·

Re: Import and export function of SPDX

Hi Michel, Thanks again for sharing your information. In regards to your posting (to both this group and the FSF legal network) about the legal clauses, I have noticed this and apologize as well for

By Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...> · #631 ·

1041 - 1060 of 1690

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms