Jilayne - lets discuss at your convinence. (today if possible) Rockett

* Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@...> [2011-05-26 10:25]: Jilayne, are you the right person to take care of this? Gary, is this something you can add to your tool? -- Martin

See my blog post on the subject: http://www.spdx.org/content/celebrate-small-victories-and-cheers-open-source-initiative

Martin Michlmayr <tbm@...> wrote: Thank you! BTW: Could you add a OSI tag to http://spdx.org/licenses/CPL-1.0? This license is superceeded but it is used for the korn shell and other AT&T

* Gary O'Neall <gary@...> [2011-05-25 18:05]: I've put the update in place now. However, the issues pointed out by Juergen and Joerg are different to the known issue. I've fixed

[ adding Debian relevant people for DEP5 & preserving all extra needed Cc:-s mentioned in the thread thus far (I hope :)) ] Agreed, of course. A small clarification is needed here. Actually DEP5

http://spdx.org/licenses/ISC and error. Confirming this problem for Firefox 4.0.1

First, let me be a pain in the neck and suggest we should move this discussion to the spdx-legal list. We've committed to limiting this general list to more summary information and less real work. My

I brought this up because it is a new signature in FOSSology and I'd like the name to be as close to the SPDX guidelines as possible. I really like Daniel's method of identifying disjunctive

Hi Juergen, Thanks for pointing out the errors. I believe this is a known encoding error which should be fixed when we next update the licenses. This will be fixed on the next update. We don't

Hello, Ciaran Farrell said on Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:35:01PM +0200: Just for completion (and maybe discussion with them), I attended a session at the latest Solutions Linux in Paris, where a project

Daniel, et al. By "KDEupgradeClause" you are referring to the previous posts re: KDE reserving the right to decide on post-v3 versions of GPL as well, is that right? I suppose from the standpoint of

Hi Bob, Scott, Jilayne, Armijn, Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote: We (as in Ninka) decided to consider this a (GPLv2 | GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause). It can also be considered: (GPLv2 | GPLv3

Because KDE e.V. is a German non-profit and its members like to have endless meetings ;-) Kidding aside, this license change came a few years ago because they went through a lot of pain when they

This is the way I read it as well. However I don't know why they wouldn't just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your option) any later version..." which seems completely

doh! Thank you and Armijn for straightening me out. So would a reasonable license name be "GPL-2+-KDE" ? Bob Gobeille

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later. THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!) As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is

I've never heard of GPLv2.1, but if you mean LGPLv2.1, the KDE project has a similar license for that too. Basically this license says: "KDE e.V. currently only approves GPLv2 or GPLv3, but if the

I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the name would be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't,

Firefox diagnostics are misleading here. We have https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=655661 for this. The SPDX pages are served with mime-type application/xml, but entities are used that are