|
Re: a way to specify the license of the SPDX file?
Philip Odence
Whoops, I've got to learn to read ahead.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:32 AM, <kate.stewart@...> <kate.stewart@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: a way to specify the license of the SPDX file?
Philip Odence
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 file. There will be a default license, probably an standard open source license, but the author of the file will have the ability to specify a different one. Phil L. Philip Odence Vice President of Business Development Black Duck Software, inc. 265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502
On Feb 3, 2011, at 1:53 AM, D M German wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: a way to specify the license of the SPDX file?
kate.stewart@...
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 data. (tricky wording deliberate ;) - you can't license facts it appears )
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Field will be either a license short form, or reference to text included in the non-standard license section - that the author wants to assert, if its not going to be made available under one of the standard licenses. Legal team was looking into recommending/creating a default license to be used, to make it easy to do the right thing in terms of sharing. HTH, Kate --- On Thu, 2/3/11, D M German <dmg@...> wrote:
From: D M German <dmg@...> |
|
|
|
a way to specify the license of the SPDX file?
dmg
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 do it _inside_ the own SPDX file? thanks! --dmg -- -- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org/ http://silvernegative.com/ dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . |
|
|
|
Re: License List v1.6 - uploaded
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
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 version is indicated. In this case, it seems that our LGPL+ should be taken off the list as its superfluous, agreed? I can't think of a scenario where having this listed separately is of any use, but I could be missing something...
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel jlovejoy@... 720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free www.openlogic.com OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021 -----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 2:21 PM To: spdx@... Subject: Re: License List v1.6 - uploaded On 2011-02-02 21:21, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: Hi All,Thanks! One remaining thing that Debian caught hereimho 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 with GPL and LGPL than GPL+ and LGPL+ See comment below. Seems to me this scenario would essentially be the same as the oldest In this situation, the SPDX file creator couldI would disagree. The GPL and LGPL are very clear there: In the GPL 2.0 for instance: "9. [...] If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." There is no determination of facts that can be done. There is a choice. The earliest copyright would not be a relevant fact but rather your interpretation.
-- Cordially Philippe philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx |
|
|
|
Re: License List v1.6 - uploaded
Philippe Ombredanne
On 2011-02-02 21:21, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Hi All,Thanks! One remaining thing that Debian caught hereimho 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 with GPL and LGPL than GPL+ and LGPL+ See comment below. Seems to me this scenario would essentially be the same as the oldest In this situation, the SPDX file creator couldI would disagree. The GPL and LGPL are very clear there: In the GPL 2.0 for instance: "9. [...] If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." There is no determination of facts that can be done. There is a choice. The earliest copyright would not be a relevant fact but rather your interpretation.
-- Cordially Philippe philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com |
|
|
|
License List v1.6 - uploaded
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
Hi All,
I’ve just uploaded v1.6 of the License List. This reflects the following changes: - License Identifiers (short names) updated to be consistent with Debian short names - No changes in our full names - Deleted the “Recognized Exceptions” column – this wasn’t being used anyway
Other differences that were not changed: - we use “MIT” – Debian uses “Expat” as license name - Debian calls “IBM Common Public License” what SPDX calls “IBM Public License” and a separate “Common Public License” – left as is; my observation/understanding is that IPL and CPL are different (yet similar)
One remaining thing that Debian caught here (http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat) à SPDX has a LGPL+ which is to denote where LGPL is listed as the applicable license, with no version whatsoever indicated. We do not have the equivalent for GPL – should we add the former or get rid of the latter? Seems to me this scenario would essentially be the same as the oldest LGPL/GPL “or later.” In this situation, the SPDX file creator could choose to take the extra step of determining the earliest copyright notice and then apply that logic to determine which version of GPL/LGPL could applied at the earliest, record this as the “Concluded License,” and comment accordingly in the “License Comment” section. Anyone want to concur or contradict, so I can make the change and re-upload again?
Cheers,
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
|
|
|
|
reminder, spdx-tech weekly meeting today 2/1/11
Bill Schineller
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 dial-in number: (253) 336-6732; Conference code: 7833942033. URL: http://blackducksoftware.na6.acrobat.com/spdxrdf/ All are welcome. We generally review what's been going around in our mailing list https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/ with an eye towards formalizing proposals http://spdx.org/wiki/proposals Requested Agenda Items for 2/1/11: A- scrubbing/prioritizing the bug list B- the files property[1] and the owl ontology[2] proposals: [1]: http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628 [2]: http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=633 Bill Schineller Knowledge Base Manager Black Duck Software Inc. T: +1.781.810.1829 F: +1.781.891.5145 E: bschineller@... http://www.blackducksoftware.com |
|
|
|
Re: interesting variant of the GPL
Armijn Hemel <armijn@...>
On 01/28/2011 03:38 PM, Kim Weins wrote:
Interesting. This would get handled as a "non-standard" license for now.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 administrative and legal things for KDE. KDE developers can apply for a membership. Existing members have to vote before new developers get accepted as members. KDE is an interesting project and they have taken good care of their legal stuff, except for the occasional slip (it went unnoticed for a year that there are GPLv3+ files in Amarok, which is advertised as GPLv2+, I caught it with Ninka). armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ armijn@... || http://www.gpl-violations.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
Re: interesting variant of the GPL
Kim Weins
Interesting. This would get handled as a "non-standard" license for now.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Kim On Fri 1/28/11 5:43 AM, "D M German" <dmg@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
interesting variant of the GPL
dmg
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 GPLv2+(according to FSF and KDE) * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under * * the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software * * Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) version 3 or * * any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor approved * * by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined in Section 14 of * * version 3 of the license. * -- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org/ http://silvernegative.com/ dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . |
|
|
|
FYI: Invitation: SPDX Beta Orientation Call
Kim Weins
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 during the normal business call time slot on Feb 3rd. If you know of other potential beta sites, please let me know and feel free to invite them to this meeting. Let me know if you have any more questions. Kim ------ Forwarded Message From: Kim Weins <kim.weins@...> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:41:21 -0700 To: <scott.lamons@...>, <Mark.Gisi@...>, <brad_dixon@...>, <mgia3940@...>, <tcallawa@...>, <Soeren_Rabenstein@...>, <guillaume.rousseau@...> Conversation: Invitation: SPDX Beta Orientation Call Subject: Invitation: SPDX Beta Orientation Call Hello to all of our SPDX Beta Sites! You are invited to attend a SPDX Beta Orientation call on Thursday Feb 3rd, 11am ET/8am PT. The call and web meeting (details below) will cover an overview of SPDX and the details of the Beta Program, including: -What we ask of Beta participants -What support you will receive from SPDX -Tools -Schedules and Timing If you are planning to participate in the Beta Program, we would encourage you to invite any other colleagues from your company that would be involved in the Beta testing -- including technical and/or legal resources. If you know which trading partner (supplier or customer) you will be working with for the Beta program, please invite them to this meeting as well. Please RSVP to Kim Weins, Beta Program Manager. Kim.weins@.... If you are not able to make this time, please let me know and we can arrange another time for your orientation. Regards Kim Weins and the SPDX Team Call Details ID: 2404502 Dial in: US 866-740-1260 Find Int’l numbers at http://www.readytalk.com/support/international-numbers.php Web meeting www.readytalk.com <http://www.readytalk.com> ID: 2404502 ------ End of Forwarded Message |
|
|
|
Agenda for Thursday's SPDX General Meeting
Philip Odence
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 (U.S. and Canada): (877) 435-0230 International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732 For those dialing in from other regions, a list of toll free numbers can be found: https://www.intercallonline.com/portlets/scheduling/viewNumbers/viewNumber.do?ownerNumber=6053870&audioType=RP&viewGa=false&ga=OFF Web: I've been including this only for attendance purposes, but the size of the calls has been such that we can do it the ol' fashioned way. Administrative Agenda
Technical Team Report - Kate Business Team Report - Kim/JohnE
Legal Team Report - Rockett/Karen
Cross Functional Issues - Phil
Action Items Most of the action items belong with the Teams. So, in addition to statusing, we will dispatch them to the respective teams and will not continue to track in this meeting. Action items for this meeting will be cross functional. • Kate/Kim- Draft example for LF Member Counsel; include XML and spreadsheet. PENDING • MichaelH/Rockett- Write up and share postion on "reporting" vs. "interpreting. PENDING • MartinM- Report back on # of people on respective mailing lists. DONE, BUT LET'S KEEP UPDATING • Jilayne- Add column to license list showing Deb5 short names for comparison. L. Philip Odence Vice President of Business Development Black Duck Software, inc. 265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502
|
|
|
|
Re: new version of License List uploaded
Tom Incorvia
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 exclude. To work with the variations, we treat it like the BSD variants where there must be an exact match other than Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>. Tom
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct: (512) 340-1336 Mobile: (408) 499 6850 -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfontana@...] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:29 PM To: Tom Incorvia Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; Kim Weins; SPDX Subject: Re: new version of License List uploaded Delurking ... On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:07:02PM -0800, Tom Incorvia wrote: - Regarding the MIT license. This is a VERY well-established license,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 to argue that these shouldn't be treated as one family). I once started to make an effort to catalogue all the different variants you find in just one project (Kerberos) and gave up (maybe out of boredom, but still...). Tom Callaway has probably made the most careful attempt to collect the various licenses that seem to often be labelled "MIT". (No question that the direction is towards standardization on the version that OSI happens to list as a template, or something close to that.) Some of the variants one finds in this license family are arguably legally significant. For what it's worth, Red Hat and Fedora use the "MIT" label to describe all of the various licenses in this family in package metadata. I would assume that Black Duck listing the MIT license as #4 involves to at least some degree collecting a bunch of variants. - Regarding Perl – since there is not a Perl license or Perl licenseI wonder if the value in doing so lies in the fact that Perl modules are commonly licensed as "under the same terms as Perl itself", which most often probably means (Artistic 1.0 or GPL) but is sometimes unclear. - I am not familiar with the general use of the OpenSSL exception, butWe have experience with it. Not sure there is one canonical version but I think the one in that debian-legal posting is the one that the FSF recommended at one time. I believe that there is a different version that was updated for GPLv3, but I may be misremembering. I seem to remember writing my own version (while at Red Hat) at one point. Conceptually, the OpenSSL exception is one of a class of GPL linking exceptions. - Anyone else familiar with GPL Font – not me?The GPL font exception, which originates with the FSF, is pretty well known. We've used and encountered it in certain forms at Red Hat. It is possible the FSF has an updated version for GPLv3, or will someday. - Richard This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController - www.MailController.altohiway.com |
|
|
|
Re: new version of License List uploaded
Richard Fontana
Delurking ...
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:07:02PM -0800, Tom Incorvia wrote: - Regarding the MIT license. This is a VERY well-established license,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 to argue that these shouldn't be treated as one family). I once started to make an effort to catalogue all the different variants you find in just one project (Kerberos) and gave up (maybe out of boredom, but still...). Tom Callaway has probably made the most careful attempt to collect the various licenses that seem to often be labelled "MIT". (No question that the direction is towards standardization on the version that OSI happens to list as a template, or something close to that.) Some of the variants one finds in this license family are arguably legally significant. For what it's worth, Red Hat and Fedora use the "MIT" label to describe all of the various licenses in this family in package metadata. I would assume that Black Duck listing the MIT license as #4 involves to at least some degree collecting a bunch of variants. - Regarding Perl – since there is not a Perl license or Perl licenseI wonder if the value in doing so lies in the fact that Perl modules are commonly licensed as "under the same terms as Perl itself", which most often probably means (Artistic 1.0 or GPL) but is sometimes unclear. - I am not familiar with the general use of the OpenSSL exception, butWe have experience with it. Not sure there is one canonical version but I think the one in that debian-legal posting is the one that the FSF recommended at one time. I believe that there is a different version that was updated for GPLv3, but I may be misremembering. I seem to remember writing my own version (while at Red Hat) at one point. Conceptually, the OpenSSL exception is one of a class of GPL linking exceptions. - Anyone else familiar with GPL Font – not me?The GPL font exception, which originates with the FSF, is pretty well known. We've used and encountered it in certain forms at Red Hat. It is possible the FSF has an updated version for GPLv3, or will someday. - Richard |
|
|
|
Re: new version of License List uploaded
Tom Incorvia
- Regarding the MIT license. This is a VERY well-established license, #4 on the Black Duck site, is listed in expected form the OSI site, etc. I have not seen variants other than the copyright year and copyright holders template holders. I strongly recommend that we maintain the MIT license without associating it with Expat. No opinion on whether to list Expat or not – I have not used it, but am in the commercial world
- Regarding Perl – since there is not a Perl license or Perl license stack (like Python), I suggest that we not list Perl as a license.
- I am not familiar with the general use of the OpenSSL exception, but it is certainly distinct from any exceptions that we currently have listed. Here is a reference from Debian Legal on this exception. Does anyone have experience with this exception and know if the text is consistent?
- Anyone else familiar with GPL Font – not me?
From: Jilayne Lovejoy [mailto:Jlovejoy@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:34 PM To: Tom Incorvia; Kim Weins; SPDX Subject: RE: new version of License List uploaded
Thanks, Tom. Do you (or anyone on the list) have any thoughts on the 3 items highlighted in yellow below?
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021 From: Tom Incorvia [mailto:tom.incorvia@...]
Hi Jilayne,
On the legal call today I offered to do a last look at the Debian / SPDX license name differences.
I agree with Kim:
The exclusion of “.0” in cases where the license issuer does not use that makes sense
The Debian abbreviation of the GNU Free Documentation License is a far more common use that the FDL that we chose, so let’s use GFDL.
Tom
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kim Weins
Thanks Jilayne
I just uploaded v1.5 of the License List spreadsheet and accompanying guidelines/notes document to the SPDX website here:
_______________________________________________
Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController. |
|
|
|
Re: new version of License List uploaded
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
Thanks, Tom. Do you (or anyone on the list) have any thoughts on the 3 items highlighted in yellow below?
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021 From: Tom Incorvia
[mailto:tom.incorvia@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:04 AM To: Kim Weins; Jilayne Lovejoy; SPDX Subject: RE: new version of License List uploaded
Hi Jilayne,
On the legal call today I offered to do a last look at the Debian / SPDX license name differences.
I agree with Kim:
The exclusion of “.0” in cases where the license issuer does not use that makes sense
The Debian abbreviation of the GNU Free Documentation License is a far more common use that the FDL that we chose, so let’s use GFDL.
Tom
From:
spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kim Weins
Thanks Jilayne
I just uploaded v1.5 of the License List spreadsheet and
accompanying guidelines/notes document to the SPDX website here:
_______________________________________________
Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController. |
|
|
|
Re: new version of License List uploaded
Tom Incorvia
Hi Jilayne,
On the legal call today I offered to do a last look at the Debian / SPDX license name differences.
I agree with Kim:
The exclusion of “.0” in cases where the license issuer does not use that makes sense
The Debian abbreviation of the GNU Free Documentation License is a far more common use that the FDL that we chose, so let’s use GFDL.
Tom
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kim Weins
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 10:44 AM To: Jilayne Lovejoy; SPDX Subject: Re: new version of License List uploaded
Thanks Jilayne
I just uploaded v1.5 of the License List spreadsheet and accompanying guidelines/notes document to the SPDX website here:
_______________________________________________
Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController. |
|
|
|
Re: Purpose of licensing info
Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
** For SPDX Legal WorkStream **
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
As a means to drive comments/redlines, below please find were we left off in the last SPDX Legal Workstream Call for the following Sections. Many thanks, Rockett *** Proposal: section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec will become 3 fields: 5.3a Concluded License(s) 5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license concluded as governing the file, if it can be determined. If no license information can be concluded, the license is denoted as "Unknown". The licenses should use the standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms. If a Concluded License is not one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one license is concluded in the file, then each should be listed. If any of the concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses, then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive" license. 5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform method to refer to the license that is concluded to represent the file with specificity to eliminate any license confusion. For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD. If there is a conflict between the Concluded License(s) and Detected License(s) Information, the Concluded License(s) controls, and the rationale for the Concluded License must be recited in the License Comment field. 5.3a.3 Cardinality: Mandatory, one. 5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseConcluded:" 5.3a.5 RDF: TBD (include Disjunctive form here) 5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in Appendix I> | "FullLicense"-N 5.3a.7 Example: LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0 5.3b Detected License(s) Information 5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license information recited in the file, if any. It will be explicit from the file header or other information found in the file's source code. If no license information is found it should be denoted as "NotSpecified". If no license information can be determined, the license is denoted as "Unknown". The licenses should use the standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms. If a Detected License Information does not correspond to one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one license is detected in the file, then each should be listed. If any of the detected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses, then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive" license. 5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform method to refer to each license objectively detected with specificity to eliminate any license confusion. For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD. 5.3b.3 Cardinality: Mandatory, one or many. 5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:" 5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if multiple many should be specified ) 5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in Appendix I> | "FullLicense"-N 5.3b.7 Example: LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0 LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2 5.3c License Comments 5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description of the analysis and any relevent background references that went in to arriving at the Concluded License(s) for a file, if the Concluded License(s) does not match the Detected License(s) Information, such rationale must be recited by the reviewer in this field. 5.3c.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to provide technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical explanation of how the Concluded License(s) was determined if it does not match the Detected License(s) Information. 5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance 5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:" 5.3c.5 RDF: TBD 5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with </text>. 5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The Concluded License(s) was taken from the package level that the file was included in. </text> *** On 2011-01-20, at 7:20 AM, D M German wrote:
Peter> The license of a license file is not necessarily the license defined Peter> in that file. For example, if the file COPYING contains the text of Peter> the GPL-v2 its license should be Peter> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of Peter> this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Thanks Peter, this is something I haven't thought about! --dmg -- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org/ http://silvernegative.com/ dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx |
|
|
|
today's spdx-tech weekly call at 4pm Eastern time
Bill Schineller
(Intentionally cross-posting meeting invite to main mailing list to reach
potential audience, although we keep tech discussions on spdx-tech) Today's spdx-tech call will be at 4pm Eastern Time (usually it is at 11, changed today due to team member conflicts) Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada): (877) 435-0230; International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732; Conference code: 7833942033. URL: http://blackducksoftware.na6.acrobat.com/spdxrdf/ All are welcome. We generally review what's been going around in our mailing list https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/ with an eye towards formalizing proposals http://spdx.org/wiki/proposals Bill Schineller Knowledge Base Manager Black Duck Software Inc. T: +1.781.810.1829 F: +1.781.891.5145 E: bschineller@... http://www.blackducksoftware.com |
|
|