Date   

Re: Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed? #poll

David A. Wheeler
 

> A new poll has been created…

I would prefer another option NOT in the poll (and thus have not voted): Treat it as just another license statement. There are multiple ways this kind of “uncopyrightable” assertion is made, and I think that specific form should be captured as a license statement.

 

New entries should be created for at least the “CC Public Domain Mark” and the situation where someone in the US government does it as part of official duties & doesn’t claim a copyright. There’s a discussion going on here:

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/988

 

Treating it like “everything else” means there are no special cases for SPDX, *and* you get finer-grained information.

 

For those who object & say that “there is no license”, well, “license” is just synonym for “permission”, and in this case the permission is granted by the way the legal systems work. So it’s a permission granted by the underlying mechanisms of law J.  I think the *users* of SPDX will appreciate the simplicity of *not* needing another special case.

 

 

From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of michael.kaelbling@...
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 5:51 AM
To: spdx@...
Subject: [spdx] Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed? #poll

 

The U.S. Copyright Office considers some works uncopyrightable "because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship", e.g. "words and short phrases ... titles ... names", "mere listing of ... contents, or a simple set of directions...", and  blank forms  (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf). 

SPDX-License-Identifier: NONE and SPDX-CopyrightText: NONE state that there is no license or copyright statement, but do not say that none is needed or possible.

SPDX-License-Identifer: NOASSERTION and SPDX-CopyrightText: NOASSERTION is similarly inappropriate.

A REUSE.software scan will produce false-positives if it has no way to distinguish the case of uncopyrightable material.  This issue came up because my group has empty files (placeholders) and blank forms (templates) in OSS.  Since we require a clean scan on each build, we have to maintain a workaround to eliminate the false positives.
-----
My apologies if you find this poll inappropriate: I thought I had submitted this concern weeks ago as a message, but I am now unable to find it -- nor have I got any response. Therefore I am taking this route to get my question addressed.

1. Yes - an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License is needed
2. Yes - an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword is needed
3. No
4. No - simply claim an unenforceable copyright and license

Vote Now


SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines

J Lovejoy
 

Hi all,

I’m sending this to both the legal and general mailing lists to ensure greatest visibility. The legal team has come up with a final draft of the license inclusion guidelines based on various conversations and feedback over the past 8 months of intermittent discussion.

The pull request representing this draft is located here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/990

We are looking to provide another two weeks for review and comment and then finalize and publish this. Please do comment either on the PR, the issue below or the legal team mailing list. (including +1 if you think it’s all good!)

The issue where some of the discussion has taken place is here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/925

Thanks!

Jilayne
SPDX legal team co-lead


SPDX License List - license inclusion guidelines

J Lovejoy
 

Hi all,

As has been mentioned on recent general calls, the legal team has been discussing a revision of the license inclusion guidelines off and on over the past year. We have a draft iteration that incorporates many of the discussed changes in the Github repo here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md The existing guidelines are here: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview

We will be discussing this on tomorrow’s legal call and hoping to finalize the revision of the inclusion guidelines in the next few weeks. If you are interested in this topic, I’d encourage you to join the call tomorrow or otherwise comment in Github or on the mailing list.

Thanks,
Jilayne
SPDX legal team co-lead


Re: Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed? #poll

Steve Winslow
 

Hello all, there has been a related thread going on in the spdx-legal list: see https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/topic/71831424

As mentioned in that thread, I would note the Legal Team's comments on this from April 2013 at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files

Best,
Steve


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:33 AM <michael.kaelbling@...> wrote:

A new poll has been created:

The U.S. Copyright Office considers some works uncopyrightable "because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship", e.g. "words and short phrases ... titles ... names", "mere listing of ... contents, or a simple set of directions...", and  blank forms  (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf). 

SPDX-License-Identifier: NONE and SPDX-CopyrightText: NONE state that there is no license or copyright statement, but do not say that none is needed or possible.

SPDX-License-Identifer: NOASSERTION and SPDX-CopyrightText: NOASSERTION is similarly inappropriate.

A REUSE.software scan will produce false-positives if it has no way to distinguish the case of uncopyrightable material.  This issue came up because my group has empty files (placeholders) and blank forms (templates) in OSS.  Since we require a clean scan on each build, we have to maintain a workaround to eliminate the false positives.
-----
My apologies if you find this poll inappropriate: I thought I had submitted this concern weeks ago as a message, but I am now unable to find it -- nor have I got any response. Therefore I am taking this route to get my question addressed.

1. Yes - an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License is needed
2. Yes - an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword is needed
3. No
4. No - simply claim an unenforceable copyright and license

Vote Now



--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation


Re: Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed? #poll

Aaron Williamson
 

Hi Michael,

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:33 AM <michael.kaelbling@...> wrote:
The U.S. Copyright Office considers some works uncopyrightable "because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship", e.g. "words and short phrases ... titles ... names", "mere listing of ... contents, or a simple set of directions...", and  blank forms  (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf). 

SPDX-License-Identifier: NONE and SPDX-CopyrightText: NONE state that there is no license or copyright statement, but do not say that none is needed or possible.

One concern with an "UNCOPYRIGHTABLE" identifier is that its existence could give rise to inappropriate application by authors. It's often quite difficult to conclusively determine whether a questionable work is copyrightable under U.S. law. So by making the identifier available, you may create a risk of false negatives, i.e. that it would be inappropriately applied to things that are in fact subject to copyright.

As you say, there is already a risk of false positives, insofar as people might apply a copyright license to something that is not subject to copyright. But in the case of false positives, the failure condition is that the license was not needed; either way, the consumer is ok. In the case of false negatives, where the "UNCOPYRIGHTABLE" assertion was used in place of a license by the author of a copyrightable work, the failure condition is arguably that there is no license. The "UNCOPYRIGHTABLE" assertion doesn't meet the criteria for abandonment of copyright under US law, so at best you'd be resorting to an estoppel theory based on the author's mistaken characterization. I admit the risk is not massive, but it's worth considering.

A related concern is that non-US, non-copyright protections (like a sui generis database right) may apply, which a FOSS license might be sufficient to convey but an "UNCOPYRIGHTABLE" assertion would not.

All that said, I agree that your use case -- tagging materials to be ignored by a scanner -- is a valid one. The only question is whether using "UNCOPYRIGHTABLE" would create more trouble than it's worth for the reasons given above.

Best,
Aaron


Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed? #poll

Kaelbling, Michael
 

The U.S. Copyright Office considers some works uncopyrightable "because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship", e.g. "words and short phrases ... titles ... names", "mere listing of ... contents, or a simple set of directions...", and  blank forms  (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf). 

SPDX-License-Identifier: NONE and SPDX-CopyrightText: NONE state that there is no license or copyright statement, but do not say that none is needed or possible.

SPDX-License-Identifer: NOASSERTION and SPDX-CopyrightText: NOASSERTION is similarly inappropriate.

A REUSE.software scan will produce false-positives if it has no way to distinguish the case of uncopyrightable material.  This issue came up because my group has empty files (placeholders) and blank forms (templates) in OSS.  Since we require a clean scan on each build, we have to maintain a workaround to eliminate the false positives.
-----
My apologies if you find this poll inappropriate: I thought I had submitted this concern weeks ago as a message, but I am now unable to find it -- nor have I got any response. Therefore I am taking this route to get my question addressed.

Results


Re: Thursday's SPDX General Meeting Reminder

Kate Stewart
 

Hi Phil, all
     Quick update,   we will have a guest speaker this week.

Matthew Crawford will be discussing "Arm’s SPDX compliance file"

Thanks, Kate

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:20 PM Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> wrote:

No guest speakers this month.

And, I will be out so Kate will chair in my stead.

 

 

 GENERAL MEETING

 

Meeting Time: Thurs, March 5, 8am PT / 10 am CT / 11am ET / 15:00 UTC.  http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html


Conf call dial-in:

New dial in number: 415-881-1586

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at: 
http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam

 

Administrative Agenda

Attendance

Minutes Approval:   

 

Technical Team Report – Kate/Gary

 

Legal Team Report – Jilayne/Paul/Steve

 

Outreach Team Report – Jack

 

Any Cross Functional Issues –All

 

 


Thursday's SPDX General Meeting Reminder

Phil Odence
 

No guest speakers this month.

And, I will be out so Kate will chair in my stead.

 

 

 GENERAL MEETING

 

Meeting Time: Thurs, March 5, 8am PT / 10 am CT / 11am ET / 15:00 UTC.  http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html


Conf call dial-in:

New dial in number: 415-881-1586

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at: 
http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam

 

Administrative Agenda

Attendance

Minutes Approval:   

 

Technical Team Report – Kate/Gary

 

Legal Team Report – Jilayne/Paul/Steve

 

Outreach Team Report – Jack

 

Any Cross Functional Issues –All

 

 


Today's SPDX General Meeting Reminder

Phil Odence
 

 GENERAL MEETING

 

Meeting Time: Thurs, Feb 6, 8am PT / 10 am CT / 11am ET / 15:00 UTC.  http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html


Conf call dial-in:

New dial in number: 415-881-1586

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at: 
http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam

 

Administrative Agenda

Attendance

Minutes Approval:   

 

Technical Team Report – Kate/Gary

 

Legal Team Report – Jilayne/Paul

 

Outreach Team Report – Jack

 

Any Cross Functional Issues –All

 

 


Re: Migration to SPDX

Max Mehl
 

~ Gary O'Neall [2020-01-27 19:38 +0100]:
For the SPDX documents, I would recommend making that part of the standard
release process. When new releases are published, you can publish a new
SPDX document for that release. This will probably require a bit of
tooling, some of which is available in open source at github.com/spdx.
As a side note, if you adopt the REUSE guidelines - so marking each file
with copyright and licensing information using SPDX tags - creating an
SPDX document will be just a matter of one command with the helper tool:
`reuse spdx`

For more information: https://reuse.software

Best,
Max

--
Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe
Contact and information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl | @mxmehl
Become a supporter of software freedom: https://fsfe.org/join


Re: Migration to SPDX

Gary O'Neall
 

Hi Ashok,

 

You can keep the existing license file in the distribution but we recommend adding SPDX identifiers to the source files – see https://spdx.org/ids for more information.

 

For the SPDX documents, I would recommend making that part of the standard release process.  When new releases are published, you can publish a new SPDX document for that release.  This will probably require a bit of tooling, some of which is available in open source at github.com/spdx. 

 

Let us know if you have any other questions or would like more details.

 

Regards,

Gary

 

From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of Ashok Madugula
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:18 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: [spdx] Migration to SPDX

 

Hi  :

We are planning to migrate to SPDX Licenses.

If we are using general MIT  License . Can we replace the existing license file with SPDX Identifier  ?

Do we need to generate new  SPDX Document and publish them regularly   ?

 

Regards

Ashok Madugula

This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.


Migration to SPDX

Ashok Madugula
 

Hi  :

We are planning to migrate to SPDX Licenses.

If we are using general MIT  License . Can we replace the existing license file with SPDX Identifier  ?

Do we need to generate new  SPDX Document and publish them regularly   ?

 

Regards

Ashok Madugula

This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.


Re: Question on creating new SPDX Identifier

Gary O'Neall
 

Hi Ashok,

 

Based on the license matching guidelines, the text matches MIT.  You can test the license text using the SPDX online tools at http://13.57.134.254/app/check_license/

 

Gary

 

From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of Ashok Madugula
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 12:54 AM
To: spdx@...
Subject: [spdx] Question on creating new SPDX Identifier

 

HI  :

We are using the following license which is almost same as X11  . Do we need to raise a request for new SPDX Identifier  ?

If so , can you let us know the process ?

 

***************************************************

LICENSE START

Copyright (C) YYYY – YYYY Xilinx, Inc.  All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

LICENSE END 

*****************************************************

 

This is almost same as X11 .

 

************************************************

 

X11 License

Copyright (C) 1996 X Consortium

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the X Consortium.

X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.

 

 

Regards

Ashok Madugula

This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.


Question on creating new SPDX Identifier

Ashok Madugula
 

HI  :

We are using the following license which is almost same as X11  . Do we need to raise a request for new SPDX Identifier  ?

If so , can you let us know the process ?

 

***************************************************

LICENSE START

Copyright (C) YYYY – YYYY Xilinx, Inc.  All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

LICENSE END 

*****************************************************

 

This is almost same as X11 .

 

************************************************

 

X11 License

Copyright (C) 1996 X Consortium

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the X Consortium.

X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.

 

 

Regards

Ashok Madugula

This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.


[ANNOUNCE] Open source license compliance tooling meeting and hackathon on January 31st 2020 pre-FOSDEM fringe event in Bruxelles, Belgium

Philippe Ombredanne
 

If you care about open source compliance automation and if you are
going to FOSDEM there is a one day hackathon and meeting taking place
the day before FOSDEM on Friday January 31st as "fringe" event, in
Bruxelles, Belgium.

The topic is open source compliance tooling and automation... the
format is an unconference. I expect several open source projects in
that space to be represented there including ORT, Fossology,
ClearlyDefined, SPDX tools, Scancode and many more.

I am co-organizing this with Michael Jaeger from Fossology.

See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UphruKKAlsoUEidPCwTF2LCcHFnQkvQCQ9luTXfDupw/edit#heading=h.p2d7mni4lrcu
for details.

To "register", just add you name to this document! (alternatively you
can reply to me off list too)

I look forward to seeing you there!
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

+1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@...
DejaCode - What's in your code?! - http://www.dejacode.com
AboutCode - Open source for open source - https://www.aboutcode.org
nexB Inc. - http://www.nexb.com


SPDX General Meeting

Phil Odence
 

Here’s a new invite for 2020. Please accept the recurring meeting

Note there will be no SPDX General Meeting in January.

****

New dial in number: 415-881-1586  

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare:
https://www.uberconference.com/room/spdxteam


MEETING MINUTES FOR REVIEW: http://spdx.org/wiki/meeting-minutes-and-decisions



Thursday SPDX General Meeting Reminder

Phil Odence
 

In addition to the General Meeting reminder: As you may know, a couple of months ago (with great help from Shane Coughlin) we launched a short survey to help steer the future of SPDX. The doors will close on the survey Dec 31. We would like to get as many responses as possible from anyone who has even the lightest level of involvement or interest. So, please, fill this out yourself and forwarded it on to any of your contacts the might be willing to provide some input. I promise we will take the feedback seriously. 

 THANK YOU!

 https://forms.gle/FK2zR5TV5E44W7Cc7

 

 

GENERAL MEETING

 

Meeting Time: Thurs, Dec 5, 8am PT / 10 am CT / 11am ET / 15:00 UTC.  http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html


Conf call dial-in:

New dial in number: 415-881-1586

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at: 
http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam

 

Administrative Agenda

Attendance

Minutes Approval:   

 

Technical Team Report – Kate/Gary

 

Legal Team Report – Jilayne/Paul

 

Outreach Team Report – Jack

 

Any Cross Functional Issues –All

 

 


Thursday SPDX General Meeting Reminder

Phil Odence
 

I will not be available for this month’s meeting, but the show must go on.

Phil

 

GENERAL MEETING

 

Meeting Time: Thurs, Nov, 8am PT / 10 am CT / 11am ET / 15:00 UTC.  http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html


Conf call dial-in:

New dial in number: 415-881-1586

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at: 
http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam

 

Administrative Agenda

Attendance

Minutes Approval:   https://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2019-10-03

 

Technical Team Report – Kate/Gary

 

Legal Team Report – Jilayne/Paul

 

Outreach Team Report – Jack not available

 

Any Cross Functional Issues –All

 

 


Seeking public comments for the OpenChain specification ISO format version 2.1

Mark Gisi
 

We are seeking public comments for the next version of OpenChain specification which will conclude on December 10th.

 

For those new to the specification  - The OpenChain project has developed  a specification that defines a core set of requirements that a trusted open source compliance program is expected to satisfy.   To obtain a better understanding of the goals and the context in which the specification was developed before providing feedback, you can review the following FAQ list.

 

The big change over the current 2.0 version was reformatting the document layout into one acceptable for ISO submission and adoption.  Other than very minor clarification edits, the content has largely remained unchanged. If a company is conformant with version 2.0 - they would remain conformant with 2.1.

 

The current draft is available at:

   https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-2.1.draft.pdf

 

Past readers of the spec might find the marked up version useful:

   https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/OpenChainSpec-2.1.draft.MarkUp.pdf    

 

You can send feedback via:

·        the Mailing list: the list;

·        the issues wiki: issues list; or

·        replying to me directly if you wish to remain anonymous (mark.gisi@...)

 

best,

Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

Tel (510) 749-2016 | Fax (510) 749-4552

 


SPDX General Meeting 2019 - Moving Nov Meeting

Phil Odence
 

The Nov General Meeting is moving out a week due to conflicts for most of the Core team.

I also have a conflict on the 14th, so someone else will chair in my stead.

Phil  


*****


I’m extending this recurring meeting to run through 2019. Please accept so it is updated on your calendar, however no need to send a response to me.



New dial in number: 415-881-1586

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at:
https://www.uberconference.com/room/spdxteam



MEETING MINUTES FOR REVIEW: http://spdx.org/wiki/meeting-minutes-and-decisions