Hi Christian: <christian.ehrhardt@...> wrote: I ran scancode-toolkit and the license in base64.c [1] is identified as an ISC alright. The only (IMHO not material) change is the sentence "mod

Dear Phil: Thank you for these minutes! I want to comment on the spec license topic. <phil.odence=synopsys.com@...> wrote: The governance updates make change, but I cannot fathom the benefi

Dear Special People Doing eXceptional things: FYI, I have been working with the Python community to specify how Python package distributions can use SPDX license expressions for their Core metadata. T

Hi Jilayne: On January 31st a compliance tooling meeting and hackathon took place in Brussels before FOSDEM [1]. One of the session topics was SPDX. Everyone there agreed that SPDX license inclusion c

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,

All: I started working with the Python community to draft what we call a PEP (Python Enhancement Proposal) to adopt SPDX license expressions to document the license of Python packages. You can join th

Hi Dan: You are asking a simple question for which is there is no simple answer: this is not yet a solved problem and there is no easy button to press. Hence the long answer. Since you are trying to f

The MODULE_LICENSE macro used in the kernel is a clear license statement. And better than a terse "Copyright (c) John Doe, GPL" that is seen in the kernel since there is a clear documentation of its m

FYI: In case you missed it: SPDX identifiers have landed in kernel land... Read the whole thread at https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10016189/ And as a side effect, some new patches elsewhere are co

<podence@...> wrote: All: I have attached a PDF if you are only calling in

<podence@...> wrote: If that's of interest to the group, I would be happy to present our efforts to build a better SPDX license mousetrap with the FOSS ScanCode toolkit that I mainta

A good news came in yesterday: SPDX has been accepted as a mentoring organization for the Google Summer of Code 2017 thanks to Gary's hard work. I look forward to contribute as an admin and mentor! Se

Thank you Gary. That was quick!

Excellent! Note that none of the generated files are valid HTML. See http://spdx.org/licenses/Glide for instance With the .html extension, the browsers deal with the quirks somehow: http://spdx.org/li

Very nice! About the dead link, I am not sure exceptions have been published yet, though it could be a bug too. IMHO using your own ID extensions is quite fine, there is nothing upsetting about it, es

<ybronshteyn@...> wrote: Yev: I guess you meant External and not Eternal.... I provided a few comments to your proposed spec in the doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WfArS8_

Thanks! imho 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 wit

Peter: my 2 cents: the idea is good, though we should not reinvent a license templates syntax when the OSI has alreday done something. They use angle brackets so I would suggest using the same, not sq

All: this is most likely a known problem, but the draft web page for the spec at http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification seems to be quite hard to read (many empty lines), the paragraph numbers ar

All: as discussed during today's call here are some pointers to Launchpad RDF: This is an example of a project page: https://launchpad.net/do and the matching RDF metadata: https://launchpad.net/do/+r