Hello, Alexandre Lefebvre from OW2 told me that there is an error on the SPDX Web site wrt the spec. At http://spdx.org/, when you click on the word "specification" the link point to the version 1.0 (

Hello, Ciaran Farrell said on Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:35:01PM +0200: Just for completion (and maybe discussion with them), I attended a session at the latest Solutions Linux in Paris, where a project

Jilayne Lovejoy said on Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 07:53:12PM -0700: Which is only true at that moment of time. If/when GPLv4 is available, you would miss that one. So it's important to keep the fact that t

Radcliffe, Mark said on Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:28:17AM -0800: I can confirm I'm the maintainer of a project which is mostly GPLv2 (and not or later). So that does exist and should be differentiated (

Peter Williams said on Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:25:40PM -0700: I think we should not re-invent the wheel here. In .spec files for RPMs packages, there is already tags for GPLv2 and GPLv2+. Why not inde

Hello, Jilayne Lovejoy said on Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:19:54AM -0600: I think there is a problem line 32 of the LicenseList v1.2 file: Column A mentions version 1.0 wheresas column B says 3.0. I wonde

Bill Schineller said on Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:33:46PM -0400: Sorry, I won't be able to attend this session, being at a customer site for a Workshop. Bruno.

Kim Weins said on Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 05:05:46PM -0600: Which in fact solves the point I had during the conf call this week. If the license is known to spdx, then we can point to a uri/url linked to

Hello, I may be able to attend the last half-hour of the talk, if my previous conf call with my partner doesn't extend to much :-(. Bruno. kate.stewart@... said on Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 10:10:20PM