Hi, Updated version of the specification, incorporating the feedback received is now posted on the SPDX site an http://www.spdx.org/spec/current. Would very much appreciate those who have

We will attend OWF 2011 too. Guillaume -- Guillaume ROUSSEAU CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink Président, Cofondateur, Antelink 18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème,

That would be great since I won't be there this year. Kim Kim Weins | Senior Vice President, Marketing kim.weins@... Follow me on Twitter @KimAtOpenLogic 650 279 0410 |

Martin, Philippe is planning to go to OWF so he can give the SPDX talk this time. Regards, Michael Michael J. Herzog +1 650 380 0680 | mjherzog_at_nexB.com nexB [Open by Design]

I'm organizing a legal/licensing track at Open World Forum (September 22-24, Paris). It would be great to have a talk about SPDX. Kim, are you planning to attend OWF again and interested in giving

Your are correct. That feature is not planned for this release. I think that would be an excellent approach handling this. Any suggestions for a new formulation would be greatly

Hi all, I think that this would relate to Bug 818 - is this correct? If so, the feature would not be part of release 1.0? I would need to reread the spec, but if so the formulation could maybe be

Meeting Time: June 30, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 15:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html Conf call dial-in: Conference code: 7812589502 Toll-free dial-in number

hi all, I have encountered the Microsoft Windows Rally Development Kit License Agreement quite a few times in GPL tarballs. Strictly speaking this is not an open source license at all, but source

This event has been canceled and removed from your calendar. SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT All: Re-sending invite for regular bi-weekly SPDX Legal Workstream call. Many

All: The meeting with the "un-named concerned parties" regarding the "Author" and "Reviewer" fields (in the SPDX Specification) has not occurred yet (due to logistics). Since today's meeting was to

<kate.stewart@...> wrote: One more: Neither the names of the copyright holders nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software

<kate.stewart@...> wrote: I am not in that mailing list. It would be of great help if somebody help me with the analysis of the non-matching license files, while I concentrate on adding

Daniel These seem like examples of the things we may want to "templatize" in the standard licenses. Those efforts have been delayed behind other items. The legal team can speak to these specific

Hi Daniel, Lets move this thread to the SPDX legal subgroup discussion list. Since I think we'll need them to comment on the issues. To my eyes, yes those sentence fragments look basically

Hi Everybody, I started implementing SPDX licenses in Ninka. I started with the BSDs (4, 3 and 2). My goal is to try to 'SPDX' the kernel before LinuxCon. Of the files that Ninka is properly

I would say, yes. Jilayne

I have a question regarding when text matches a license. I am curious how should I interpret optional quotes around some text. In particular, the BSD-4 includes this text: This product includes

Hi all, I have two questions regarding the latest spec from your home page. Thanks in advance for the time and consideration. 1.) Page 10 states that "A package can contain subpackages". How

Hi all, The website refresh team has put together a proposed information map for the SPDX web site refresh initiative. The map can be found here: http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-web-site-mind-maps We’ll