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

For Today’s Legal Stream Call (attached). Tom Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct: (512) 340-1336 Mobile: (408) 499 6850

All: A few items for today's SPDX Legal Workstream Meeting: (A) For those not in the US, I provided International dial in numbers below. (B) For those in Boston for the Project Harmony meeting,

We talked primarily about the Beta program. We will be reaching out soon to solicit participation in the beta program, and are hoping some of your companies will want to

I think we would want to both do a public announcement of spdx rc and have a working meeting. I have that preso I did at owf that we can use as a starting point. I'm happy to present or help prep

Mark, That would be very cool. :) Let us know what looks possible. We'll be doing some brainstorming on the agenda options, and that capability would open up some nice options. Kate

Karen Copenhaver and I are working on coordinating a presentation between the conferences using DLA Piper's facilities. SPDX might be a topic.

Martin, The meeting last year at the Collab Summit was very productive so I strongly recommend that we plan an F2F meeting. We can manage the agenda around areas where we may need participation from

Great minds think alike! I have been asked to organize a compliance track for the Collaboration Summit and would like to include SPDX briefings and updates as a significant part of the track.

I'm wondering if we should make any plans for the LF Collaboration Summit in 2011. The CollabSummit will take place April 6-8 in San Francisco. Traditionally, FOSSBazaar had a room there and we