next release, issues to resolve in next few days

Hi all, We are a bit behind on the 3.26.0 release with the aim of pushing it on Tuesday next week. That gives us a few more days to try to get the # of issues down more. There are only 16 issues marked for the 3.26 release!! Let's see if we can get that down to less than 10!! See anything

Now: SPDX-legal call (2nd Thurs of month) - Thursday, November 14, 2024 #cal-notice

*SPDX-legal call (2nd Thurs of month)* *When:* Thursday, November 14, 2024 12:00pm to 1:00pm (UTC-05:00) America/New York *Where:* https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting *Organizer:* SPDX-legal opensou...@jilayne.com ( opensou...@jilayne.com?subject=Re:%20Event:%20SPDX-legal%20call%20%282nd%20Thu

Re: issues to review, call this Thursday, 7/11

Ah, thanks, Richard. I mistakenly thought it was at 11:00. Yours, Chad Whitacre -- Head of Open Source, Sentry <https://sentry.io/welcome/> US/Eastern <https://sentry.io/> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:09 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:51 AM Ch

Re: issues to review, call this Thursday, 7/11

Hey all, I noticed that FSL was on the agenda for today's meeting. Was it discussed? I tried joining late, but I think I was too late (or had the wrong link?). Sorry I wasn't present if FSL was discussed. If it wasn't, or will be again in the future, I would be happy to join the call. Yours, Cha

Re: How to classify unique exception?

review. > > Best, > Steve > > On Jun 12, 2024, at 12:49 PM, JoeMurray via lists.spdx.org jmaconsulting@lists.spdx.org> wrote: > > CiviCRM is an AGPLv3 licensed project with a unique exception and we're > currently collaborating with an external organization in

How to classify unique exception?

CiviCRM is an AGPLv3 licensed project with a unique exception and we're currently collaborating with an external organization in reviewing the licensing of all of the elements in our repos and published releases. The last time we did this (2010) our project counsel was Lawrence Rosen, who had also

Re: [spdx] "-only" and "-or-later" identifiers for EUPL licenses?

me, but as multiple and unconcerted reactions prove, it risks remaining a stone in SPDX's shoe for a long time. Regarding the EUPL, we do not require the creation of an "-or-later" identifier unless this was the rule for all licenses. Kind regards, Le mer. 1 mai 2024 à 18:56, J Lovejoy vi

OGC-1.0

Hi all, I noticed the following issue: https://spdx.org/licenses/OGC-1.0.html refers in sec. 2 to the following link: "Copyright © [$date-of-document] Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www. ogc.org/ogc/legal (Hypertext is preferred, but a textual representation is

[spdx-tech] Inconsistency in License text observed

Forwarding this to the legal team mailing list as they may have a better answer than the tech mailing list. -- Forwarded message - From: govinda.athyam via lists.spdx.org Date: Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:19 AM Subject: [spdx-tech] Inconsistency in License text observed To: Cc

SPDX Identifier for Inner Source Licenses?

Hi all, We were adviced by Gary O'Neall to contact you. We, the FOSS Office, are currently assessing the need of a SPDX Identifier for our Daimler Truck Inner Source License. Is this possible for Inner Source Licenses and if so, what is the process? This license will solely be used for Inner S

Re: Responsible AI Licenses in SPDX License List

Artjhit, Sounds like a good plan, On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 05:15:39 p.m. EST, Arthit Suriyawongkul wrote: Thank you all for your comments. For licenses like BigScience RAIL License [1] and CreativeML Open RAIL++-M License [2], I agree that they are quite custom for a particul

Re: Event: SPDX-legal call (2nd Thurs of month) #cal-invite

Hi Stephan fdvt m, c Von meinem Mobiltelefon gesendet Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Group Notification Datum: 09.01.24 20:07 (GMT+00:00) An: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Betreff: Event: SPDX-legal call (2nd Thurs of month) #cal-invite SPDX-legal call (2nd Thurs of month) Whe

Re: [spdx-tech] Licences Text - evolution

A lot of the answers you seek are here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md Wayne On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 6:40 AM Benedicte Presse < pressebenedicte...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > I have 2 questions : > Are licensing texts evolving ? > S

Re: [spdx-implementers] vs. in XML?

On 2023-06-27T10:42:38-0600, "J Lovejoy" wrote: > The short answer is no, please do not do this because these have > distinct meanings and are not equivalent. Looks like Gary has already > responded on the spdx-implementers list, but the other resource that > would be helpful  is the SPDX Lice

Re: [spdx-implementers] vs. in XML?

Hi SPDX Legal, Would it be beneficial if I made a pull request to license-list-XML replacing every with equivalent ? (See discussion in spdx-implementers) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3426): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/m

Re: public domain dedication variants in the wild (found in Fedora)

identifier instead and not reproduce the text in the report? Is the advantage that humans no longer must read each LicenseRef- text and interpret what compliance conditions are present? Thanks, Mary From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Ria Schalnat (HPE) via lists.spdx.org Sent: Tuesday

Re: New SPDX social media handles, blog and brand update

F2R9G_pg!Yy0KnNK2xFFFjscPOUrFkzTYle0gVrc3D9Md9rgtQuig2KJwU4XQbr1bZhHXeBUKydnHV0ZWPUxvOq88JNZunZfiw03HVea-wQJp$>. Only two people have filled it in so far. Best, On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 3:44 PM Jordi Mon Companys via lists.spdx.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lists.spdx.org_

Re: Open source licensing discovery

Interesting tool! Question: Which of your license features covers that according to the license, "distribution" includes providing remote access or SaaS? Ever visited the joinup tool

Unicode

t, Steve On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 7:27 PM Till Jaeger mailto:jae...@jbb.de>> wrote: Hi Steve, Thanks for looking into this issue. I have a few additional remarks below: Am 21.02.23 um 20:55 schrieb Steve Winslow: Whoops -- accidentally just sent this to Till, re-sending to th

Re: Unicode

PM Till Jaeger via lists.spdx.org <http://lists.spdx.org> wrote: Dear all, Sorry to bring this up again. 1. I suggest to correct the information on https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-TOU.html The link provided under "Other web pages for this license&q

Re: Unicode

Of course, it would be nice to have SPDX identifiers for the most recent versions of the TOU and Unicode-DFS. Best, Till Am 31.10.22 um 12:20 schrieb Till Jaeger via lists.spdx.org: Dear all, I'm wondering why https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-TOU.html is (still) part of the license list

Re: 3.20 License List release

Yes, amazing! From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Kate Stewart Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 at 9:06 PM To: Steve Winslow Cc: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: 3.20 License List release Wow!40 new licenses. . . .  that's a milestone for the license list additions, I th

Unicode

Dear all, I'm wondering why https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-TOU.html is (still) part of the license list. Could it be deprecated? 1. First of all, the current text of the "Unicode® Copyright and Terms of Use" is quite different from the text which is referenced at https://spdx.org/licenses/Uni

Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines

All makes sense to me. Good idea. From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Steve Winslow Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 2:14 PM To: Karsten Klein Cc: J Lovejoy , SPDX-legal Subject: Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines Jilayne -- yes, I'd be open to a lighter-weight or

Re: public domain dedications proliferation

I support the idea of Mike. In particular, this would help for both use and license compliance in (most) European countries. Please note that in many countries there is no "public domain" in the field of software since expiration of the term of protection still needs a few decades and there is no

Re: [spdx-tech] Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

Nice. This certainly makes it easy to map from Fedora to SPDX IDs! SPDX license identifiers have emerged as a standard Woo hoo! From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Steve Winslow Date: Saturday, July 30, 2022 at 12:06 PM To: J Lovejoy Cc: SPDX-legal , s...@lists.spdx.org , spdx-t..

Re: Fun with licenses

Good one for a Friday afternoon! From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Karsten Klein Date: Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:22 PM To: SPDX-legal , spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org Subject: Fun with licenses Hi all, did you know: „the and any this you license software for that not use with may code

Re: A suggestion to use Relationships for the licence variants use-case

Steve captures my same reactions well. From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of Steve Winslow Date: Friday, June 3, 2022 at 6:16 PM To: Ria Schalnat (HPE) Cc: Sebastian Crane , SPDX Legal Mailing List , SPDX Technical Mailing List Subject: Re: A suggestion to use Relationships for the

Re: Artistic-2.0 derivative - npm License

Am 02.05.22 um 13:43 schrieb Philippe Ombredanne: Hi Till: You have eagle eyes! On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 10:46 AM Till Jaeger via lists.spdx.org wrote: I noticed that NPM is using an Artistic-2.0 with additional terms and conditions: This is IMHO a total and complete mess and non-sense

Artistic-2.0 derivative - npm License

Hi all, I noticed that NPM is using an Artistic-2.0 with additional terms and conditions: - npm License Copyright (c) npm, Inc. and Contributors All rights reserved. npm is released under the Artistic License 2.0, subject to additional terms that are listed below. The text of

Re: versioning of license list

I don’t think it’s an issue. To developers, 3.20 is normal and won’t be confused as 3.2. I would advocate moving to semantic versioning where it uses a triplet (e.g. 3.20.0) and each part of the triplet has a meaning when it’s incremented. It may not matter since SPDX doesn

Re: [spdx] - Do we need a SPDX-License-Identifier for full copyright?

Am 06.04.22 um 10:02 schrieb Matija Šuklje: Die 6. 04. 22 et hora 01:07 J Lovejoy scripsit: Or is an empty SPDX-License-Identifier always saying that no license has been chosen and full copyright applies? We think an empty identifier is ambiguous and also could mean that no license decision

Re: Invitation: SPDX Legal Team meeting - 2022 @ Every 2 weeks from 12pm to 1pm on Thursday from Thu Jan 6, 2022 to Sat Dec 31, 2022 (EST) (spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org)

I’d prefer this suggested ‘2nd and 4th Thursday’ meeting lineup. One vote from me. Christina From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Steve Winslow Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2022 10:09 AM To: Sebastian Crane Cc: SPDX Legal Mailing List Subject: Re: Invitation: SPDX Legal Team meeting

Re: font licenses from Fedora submitted to SPDX License List

Jilayne, I can help with this. I'll look over the notes you sent and let you know of any other questions I might have. Christina­ Sent with BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com) From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org on behalf of J Lovejoy Sent: Feb 1, 2022 10:31 PM T

Re: License text for LGPL-3.0

Dear Steve and list members, In my opinion it is a good idea to add the license text of the GPL-3.0 to the SPDX license information. The simple reason is that the text that pretends to be the LGPL-3.0 license text isn't complete : "This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorpor

Re: remove recommendation re: standard license headers

Mike, this is really interesting input and provides great perspective. Thank you. When we first started advocating SPDX headers in files, we were concerned that there would be a backlash of concern about using them instead of standard headers and felt, therefore, we could not be silent. These m

Re: SPDX files as templates

/West Coast US From: on behalf of "Alan Tse via lists.spdx.org" Reply-To: "alan@wdc.com" Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 13:23 To: Steve Winslow , J Lovejoy Cc: Alexios Zavras , SPDX-legal Subject: Re: SPDX files as templates CAUTION:This email is received fro

Re: SPDX files as templates

st Coast US -Original Message- From: on behalf of "J Lovejoy via lists.spdx.org" Reply-To: "opensou...@jilayne.com" Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:19 To: SPDX-legal Subject: SPDX files as templates CAUTION:This email is received from an external domain

Missing today's call

And thereby missing all of you lovely people. We’ve a big deadline this week so I need to use that hour for other things, unfortunately. --V -- VM (Vicky) Brasseur Director, Senior Strategy Advisor Open Source Program Office Wipro Limited Time Zone: Pacific/West Coast US 'The information conta

Re: 3.11 License List release

Hi Steve, Thanks for sharing. It seems that there is a small typo in the Note of BUSL-1.1: " andi the open source " Best regards, Till Am 28.11.20 um 18:59 schrieb Steve Winslow: > Hello all, > > The version 3.11 release of the license list is now tagged and live at > https://spdx.org/licens

Re: New License List website features

Greetings, The "official" EUPL pages on the European Commission site JOINUP present the text of the current EUPL-1.2 https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12 but the EUPL-1.1 may still be used. No automatic switch to 1.2 if no "or later" mention was added. The 1.1 text is still

Re: New License List website features

Am 13.11.20 um 16:01 schrieb Matija Šuklje: > Die 13. 11. 20 et hora 15:48 Steve Winslow scripsit: >> Hi Matija, I think that if there is a desire for an Internet Archive link, >> that's probably most easily handled by a PR to the particular license XML >> file in https://github.com/spdx/licens

Re: Update on project: Validate license cross references

My comments are in-line. Look for MDB: On Aug 9, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Smith Tanjong Agbor mailto:stanjongag...@gmail.com>> wrote: After discussing with mentors: Steve and Gary; we thought it wise to seek everyone's opinion on two topics: 1. Change back the isMatch field to Boolean(true/false) In

Re: ANTLR-PD

t; to figure out when it was subsequently added. > >   > > Given that, I'd be inclined to add it to the ANTLR-PD markup but to > mark it as optional, so that it would match whether or not that > paragraph is present. > >  

ANTLR-PD

Hello list, I just found out that there is a deviation from https://spdx.org/licenses/ANTLR-PD.html#licenseText to the linked text from http://www.antlr2.org/license.html which contains the following language: "In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may not be valid, the author g

Re: License of an open source license text

Hi all, I have some remarks from a lawyer's perspective who is scanning source code and/or has to deal with the results from scanning. 1. It is helpful if the license text file is differently identified from licensed source files. There are some reasons for that: - This license text is not licens

Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal

I have not the technical expertise to judge the security level of the following solution that works with Zoom on Linux: https://www.linux.com/news/how-to-install-and-use-firejail-on-linux/ For some distros like Ubuntu: $ sudo apt install firejail $ sudo ln -s /usr/bin/firejail /usr/local/

Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal

Hi Kate and other SPDX folk, We have been using Zoom to provide teleconference for SPDX meetings. In light of recent events, Zoom has gotten very popular, and also been failing many security audits, and so many companies and governments have started banning its use. Amazon has a service ve

Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

Hi Matija, Wouldn't that have been lapsus digiti rather than lapsus calami? I will admit that my latin is mostly self-taught. But a slip of the finger might be a miskeying rather than the pen, unless you were scribing with a digital pen or something... Curious, -- Mark -=-=-=-=-

ssh 1.0.0 COPYING text.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2674): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2674 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/34201586/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spd

Re: [spdx] Adding a new opendata-focus license?

A question for Bastien: The French law (CRPA - D323-2-1) states that public administrations may only use two "data" licenses for public sector information (without initiating an exception process): 1° Licence ouverte de réutilisation d'informations publiques ; 2° Open Database License (which has

#spdx https://groups.io/static/tos

https://groups.io/static/tos -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2659): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2659 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/33140171/21656 Mute #spdx: https://lists.spdx.org/mk?hashtag=spdx&subid=2

Re: ISC license definition

gt; Jilayne > SPDX legal co-lead > > On Jun 24, 2019, at 7:02 AM, Yegor Yefremov via Lists.Spdx.Org > wrote: > > Dear SPDX-legal core team, > > What is the right license text for the ISC license? Both referenced > sources provide different texts in regards to the ter

ISC license definition

Dear SPDX-legal core team, What is the right license text for the ISC license? Both referenced sources provide different texts in regards to the term author: the one says "ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES" the other "THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES". Do both terms mean the same? See this discuss

Re: meeting minutes 2019-06-13

Hi Jilyane and all, Some interesting news presented by the European Commission (Jean-Paul de Baets) at the Sharing & Reuse Conference 2019 in Bucharest (June 11.) *The European Commission sharing site (Joinup.eu) is now interconnected with SPDX!* *This is done through the Joinup Licensing Assista

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

- From: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne via Lists.Spdx.Org Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 9:44 AM To: SPDX-legal Cc: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org Subject: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion See https://nam06.safelinks.protection.

Re: [spdx] Thursday SPDX General Meeting Reminder

Hi Jilayne Many thanks for your work on this. I’d be happy with the second, (or indeed any), of the options for the long identifier. My slight preference would be for the first example, but really for us the important thing is the listing, we are happy for any identifier that is clear and avoi

Open Government Licence v3.0 - on hold since 2015

Dear SPDX Legal   I am writing regarding the application to add the Open Government Licence v3.0 to the SPDX list, which has the status of “on hold” since 2015.   I would like to know what can be done to unblock this hold, as we here at The National Archive (custodians of OGLv3.0) have receiv

Re: Call today

Dear Jilayne, In July 2018 the FSF updated its free software licenses list and the EUPL-1.2 is now "officially" listed as "free". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Could you please u

Conversion to new email system complete

All, The conversion to the new email system is complete. Best regards, Jack Manbeck -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2314): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2314 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/22084415/21656