Thanks for this, Brad. I’ll make a note to add this to the general topic and
proposal in the New Year!
Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Brad Edmondson wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm mostly a lurker on these SPDX calls so far, but I'm v
On 12/17/2015 02:46 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2015 12:38 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
>>> That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
>>
>> I don't care what OSI does.
>>
>>> I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2015 12:38 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
>> That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
>
> I don't care what OSI does.
>
>> I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License
>> to the same effect on the upcoming
On 12/17/2015 12:38 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
> That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
I don't care what OSI does.
> I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License
> to the same effect on the upcoming release of the SPDX License List.
Please don't. Pretty please?
Jilayne:
> That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
I agree. In fact, I think listing both "0BSD" and "FPL-1.0.0" is a great
solution, especially if the SPDX website includes notices with each similar to
the text at https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0:
> Note: There is
That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License to the same
effect on the upcoming release of the SPDX License List.
Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 12:24 AM, Richard Font
