Bear in mind that "LicenseInformation" is the Tag which is a short form of the full name, "License Information in File." This longer name was roundly supported by folks on the last Legal Team call,

I don't love "LicenseSeen" but i agree that "LicenseInformation" a bit too ambiguous. We should either stick to one format or not specific the format of these ids at all. I lean toward just saying

I think Package should have an optional concluded licensing field also. Given that the value of this property is potentially a disjunctive set of licenses (or license sets) would "Licensing" be

Hi Rockett, Thanks for pulling this all together, and summarizing. :) Sorry I couldn't be on the last call. In reading through the summary couple of thoughts occurred. Can I suggest

SPDX Legal Workstream Members: Below please find the revised Section 5.3 text discussed during our last meeting, for your comment. I will post the same to Bugzilla later today. Many

Whoops, I've got to learn to read ahead.

Daniel, That work is in process; the Legal Team is working on it. You may want to get on their distribution list. The rough plan is to add a field to the spec which is the license for the data in the

There's a proposed field that the legal team has requested, and will be added into the first section, that lets you specify the license the author is willing to have their name associated with the

is there a way to specify the license of an SPDX file? In other words, if I create a SPDX file, and I want to attach a license to it (for example, that the file cannot be further distributed) how do I

Ah! Great point, Philippe, I forgot about that important detail in Sec. 9 of the GPL. In which case, my first scenario - that the oldest GPL/LGPL "or later" license on our list - would apply where no

Thanks! imho we should have support for both GPL and LGPL there. Note that I think that the + there is misleading. its means "or later" elsewhere and here it means "any version". I would rather go

HiAll, I’vejust uploaded v1.6 of the License List. This reflects the followingchanges: - License Identifiers (short names) updatedto be consistent with Debian short names - No

Just a reminder that the spdx-tech group meets on Tuesdays at 16:00 GMT (8:00AM Pacific Time, 11:00 AM Eastern Time).  Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada): (877) 435-0230; International

Right now it is: "GPLv2 or GPLv3, but we might add more licenses if the members of KDE e.V. choose to do so". For those of you who don't know: KDE e.V. is the German non-profit that handles all the

Interesting. This would get handled as a "non-standard" license for now. Kim

Armijn called my attention to the following license (part of Amarok): Notice how the "upgrade" option allows for licenses other than the FSF approved, hence this file is not GPLv2+ only, but

Hi everyone! I sent the following invite to all of the people that have expressed an interest in being a Beta site. All SPDX members are welcome to attend as well. This orientation will be held

Meeting Time: January 27, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 16:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html Conf call dial-in: Conference code: 7812589502 Toll-free dial-in number

Perhaps we stick with the version of MIT that is listed at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php as a way to include this license in the standard list -- it is too commonly used to

Delurking ... This is rather contrary to our experiences at Red Hat. We've encountered fascinatingly numerous language variants on the MIT/X11/Expat license family in the wild (though you might want