Hi SPDX Team, Most of the links on the SPDSX site are not working – I was trying to get to the license list. Tom Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct: (512) 340-1336 Mobile:

Hi All Minutes are now available. http://www.spdx.org/wiki/business-team-meeting-agendaminutes-20110106 We spent most of the call talking about the Beta program. We are targeting Feb 3rd to have an

To avoid any confusion, I wanted to make clear that the next SPDX General Meeting is next Thursday, January 13. There would have been a meeting last week, but we cancelled it due to the holidays; Jan

------ Original Appointment From: kim.weins@... When: 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM December 9, 2010 Subject: SPDX Business (Rollout) Call 11ET/8PT Location: See dial in below US 866-740-1260 Int'l

Hello SPDX, I have been lurking in the background for a while now; I maintain man(1) and I keep a DOAP file on the project site, I thought I would take a crack at SPDX:

Hi Jilayne, Thanks for getting the next rev of the license list out! Regarding the BSD licenses: I did some of the original work on the BSD licenses. Below is the post from June 2010. Fine

http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list Itemsof note: Olderversions of various licenses have been added. Zlib andlibpng licenses are both included. Onlyremaining issue that I

For SPDX, I suppose it makes sense to take the templated zlib and call it "zlib", and call the libpng variant "libpng", even though I don't think Fedora will ever make that

I told everyone we were planning to have it, and then forgot myself. Holiday brain I guess. We’ll reconvene post-holidays. Kim On Thu 12/23/10 9:09 AM, "Philip Odence" <podence@...> wrote: Kim

Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, which is basically the zlib license template (no specific copyright) and then the specific libpng license, since it does have some

Sure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally change the license's meaning, but it is technically different

This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call: How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only difference of which is the Copyright notice? The answer was to

Yes, but I think the general trend for the SPDX initiative has been that any difference in wording (with the possible exception of copyright holder identifiers), even if it has no effect on the rights

So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two package-specific licenses on our initial list? Jilayne

Fedora treats these two licenses as functionally identical, and calls them both "zlib". The third license looks to just be a templated version of the zlib license. ~tom == Fedora Project

I hada question regarding clarifying the zlib and libpng licenses versus what theOSI lists as the zlib/libpng license on their list. Perhaps Tom, Martin,or Jeff can shed some light on this?

We now have a issue tracker for the SPDX specification and related tools. Please report any issues you are aware of with the spec or tools at

Minutes are posted: http://www.spdx.org/wiki/20101216-general-meeting-minutes The GM minutes provide a good bi-weekly summary of everything SPDX. If you have interest in more closely monitoring or

The SPDX General Meeting is for sharing and cross functional coordination between the Technical, Business and Legal Teams. General Meetings are currently scheduled for 60 minutes, but may only require

http://www.spdx.org/wiki/license-list