Hi, We're now less than on month away from LinuxCon, and we wanted to get some information out for those who want to participate in the SPDX 2.0 Bakeoff. If you can make it to Seattle that’s fantastic

Hi, Just a quick reminder we'll be having a Q&A session about the SPDX 2.0 Specification tomorrow in the monthly general meeting at 11AM EDT/10 AM CDT/8AM PDT. Details of the meeting are: When: Thursd

Hi Phil, I think that's just the drop down menu being shown (human readable), for selection. Key is what's being stored (which is probably the short form). But I'm just guessing here. Hi Nuno, Thanks

Appologies, have a work conflict today and not able to join in. Technical team activities: - work continues on spec. Have resolved out file types, file usage portions. - decision made to not include t

Dear SPDX participants, The attached specification has all the bugzilla issues targetted to be resolved in SPDX 1.2 addressed, so its pretty close (if no significant feedback in the next few days) we'

Really nice work Daniel, thanks for pointing it out. :) Looking forward to seeing the SPDX files being generated, but this is going to definitely be handy to do some cross referencing with, as is. Kat

The SPDX team is proud to announces that the 1.1 version of the specification is now available, and replaces 1.0 as the current recommended version to work from. The 1.1 version of the specification i

Thank you for the comments, all change requests received to date have been made in DRAFT 20120826, available at: http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification Please let me know you spot any other conce

Thank you to everyone who submitted comments and bugs. :) The bugzilla bugs with the spec itself, targetted to 1.1, are now all resolved, and written comments provided so far by email have been addres

In the general meeting tomorrow, would like to survey folks to see if there are any reasons left why we can't remove the "DRAFT" designation, and declare the SPEC as 1.1. Current DRAFT is at: http://w

Hello Marc-Etienne, Good catch. Looks like you've got two bugs there, one against the translation tool, and one against the spec. Please file the bugs from https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org, For transl

Just talked to Phil and he asked me to to clarify, meeting is on THURSDAY, not Wednesday as in original title. Apologies for the confusion. Kate

Hi, Updated version of the specification, incorporating the feedback received is now posted on the SPDX site an http://www.spdx.org/spec/current. Would very much appreciate those who have been making

Thanks Daniel, Will look into adding this after we can get the guidance from the lawyers as to what varients are equivalent. ;) Kate

"LicenseInfoInFile" removes the ambiguity, so going with that seems reasonable. Kate

Hi Rockett, Thanks for pulling this all together, and summarizing. :) Sorry I couldn't be on the last call. In reading through the summary couple of thoughts occurred. Can I suggest LicenseSeen rather

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 dat

Hi Scott, The meaning of the declared and detected at the package is different than what we've been discussing at the file level, and separation of the two different cases (package level vs. file leve

Based on discussions on the SPDX call today, I think we are closing in on the following proposal for the file level to address the concerns raised by Open Logic. There will be a special call tomorrow

Mark, That would be very cool. :) Let us know what looks possible. We'll be doing some brainstorming on the agenda options, and that capability would open up some nice options. Kate