Amazing. I know how much work this takes. Tom Tom Incorvia; tom.incorvia@...; O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015

I recollect someone requesting this information as part of a prior press release. There are both companies that support the standard, and a larger group of companies that have standardized on the lice

Hello Phil, fine to use Micro Focus name in this context. Thanks, Tom Tom Incorvia; tom.incorvia@...; O: (512) 340-1336; M: (408) 499 6850

As long as the licenses are - Carefully named and vetted for exact license text - Somewhat broadly applicable (“somewhat broadly” is fuzzy, but we do want the list to grow starting with very common an

Thanks Jilayne. I may need to miss the legal workstream due to mandatory day-job meeting, but will try to dial in late. Regarding the SPDX License List description: in the sentence, “The SPDX License

Thanks Jilayne. A large, well-vetted, standardized and generally accepted license list is our foundation. I volunteer to assist in timely review of the new license submissions, whether as part of the

Thanks all, your replies are truly appreciated. I withdraw the request to change the License identifier for the Eclipse Public License from EPL-1.0 to Eclipse-1.0. Separately, we are looking for knowl

Thanks Mike, The Eclipse Foundation certainly gets the big vote regarding how their license is referred to. My experience is primarily commercial ISVs in the tools space, about a dozen, ranging in yea

Hello SPDX license list interested parties, I would like to propose that we change the License Identifier for the Eclipse Public License 1.0 on the SPDX License List from “EPL-1.0” to “Eclipse-1.0”. I

At the recent SPDX general call, I offered to clarify Python licensing and to suggest standard names. This set of licenses is messy, and a long discussion is below. There is not a single logical answe

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 exclud

Re: new version of License List uploaded - 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

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

Agree. Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct: (512) 340-1336 Mobile: (408) 499 6850

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: (408) 499 6850

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 if we rethi

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

Some additional information has been added to the Python license graphic (attached). Based on the new information, it appears that the stand alone CNRI license on opensource.org is ONLY for the licens

New Proposal for SPDX license tracking related to the Python project and Python “License”: 1. Track "Python License" separate from "Python License Stack". a. The Python Programming Language, regardles

Regarding the Python licensing, Kim is correct. http://python.org/psf/summary/ clearly states that the PSF Python releases are licensed under the stack of licenses. So my statement regarding a particu