On Tue, 2023-01-24 at 21:56 -0800, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Thanks for this write-up, Richard.
>
> Having spent an exorbitant amount of my time over the years of my
> involvement in SPDX trying to politely say "no" to licenses for the
> reasons you describe below, I cannot begin to express how much I
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:58 -0700, Gary O'Neall wrote:
> We spent quite a bit of time discussing snippets in the SPDX
> technical working group. There are definitely a number of issues and
> considerations.
>
> At the conclusion of the discussions, there was a consensus that
> denoting snippets
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:15 +0200, Max Mehl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At REUSE, we currently discuss how to correctly handling snippets
> from a third party, potentially under a different license [^1]. Since
> we strive to make as much use of SPDX as possible, I wonder about how
> you would solve
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 01:21 +, Mark Atwood via lists.spdx.org
wrote:
> I just got this note from one of my developers.
>
>
>
> Is he correct? Should we or someone send a patch to Linux project?
No. Look again: GPL-2.0+ is right at the bottom of the list under
"Deprecated Licence
On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 20:55 -0700, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> Others have more religious affinity for the Linux desktop.
Wow that's a blast from the early part of this millenium. Since Linux
now runs over 80% of the world's computing resources, I thought we'd
got over stigmatizing people who
On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 20:31 +, Mark Atwood via lists.spdx.org
wrote:
> Chime has clients for Win, and for Mac, it runs in Browser on Firefox
> and on Chrome on all OSes, it has clients for mobile OSes, and also
> has local and tollfree telephone dialin in most countries.
So no app for Linux
On Thu, 2018-12-13 at 09:32 -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > Actually, you've missed the most important one raised by several
> > people that KES isn't an exception at all.
>
> I don't think Karen missed it, in fact, she pointed out that she
> t
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 19:09 -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Michael Dolan wrote earlier today:
> >Where would you insert this to create correct SPDX data for
> > Linux"? What is the current "SPDX data for Linux" that is
> > incorrect?
>
> How do you describe the license of someone's
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 15:58 -0700, J Lovejoy wrote:
[...]
> C) The issue comes down to how the short identifier would be
> effectively used due to the KES's slightly different implementation
> as described above in 1-6.
[...]
> C-iii) There is also the possibility that people might incorrectly
>
On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 10:34 -0500, Michael Dolan wrote:
> So if I can summarize my the situation we're discussing:
>
> 1) The additional permission is from one or more of many authors and
> would only apply in a situation where that author(s)' code is being
> enforced as part of a work.
Yes. As
On Sun, 2018-12-02 at 19:10 -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > Finally, there's the question of what value does a file containing
> > WITH KernelEnforcementStatement-1.0 provide to downstream?
> >
> > I think the answer here is pret
On Sat, 2018-12-01 at 14:36 -0500, Michael Dolan wrote:
> James thanks for that explanation it helps me understand the angle
> you're thinking of using this for much better.
>
> Let me ask one follow-up if I may. Is it broadly the intention to
> change the license for new files in the kernel
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 19:20 -0500, Michael Dolan wrote:
> I'm just catching up late on a Friday night and noticed this. I have
> to say I'm surprised this suddenly went to last call for comments. I
> guess I missed the prior discussion on the list about this and
> apologize for showing up late.
>
> Dne četrtek, 09. avgust 2018 ob 15:43:15 CEST je James Bottomley
> napisal(a):
Just to close the loop on this one: the TPM2 engine project got a
request from gnutls to reuse the code for their TPM2 handling. To
effect this, we need to move to LGPL instead of GPL so we can link
directl
On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 13:22 +, Alexios Zavras wrote:
> If the wording of openvpn-openssl-exception is acceptable, we could
> "templatize" its text and replace "OpenVPN" with ""
> and "OpenVPN Technologies, Inc." with "".
> For example of a simple templatized license, see the NTP license: htt
>
On Fri, 2018-08-10 at 16:08 +0200, Matija ?uklje wrote:
> Dne četrtek, 09. avgust 2018 ob 02:46:21 CEST je James Bottomley
> napisal(a):
> > Most of the alternative formulations go for wordier versions, but I
> > think brevity is better.
>
> I have pondered on this for
On Thu, 2018-08-09 at 08:03 +0200, Matija ?uklje wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> if there is interest, I volunteer to help with this one.
Sure ... as a lawyer just tell me if the form of words achieves what I
need and is optimal.
Thanks,
James
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages
Hi All,
I need to add an OpenSSL exception to an existing GPL-2.0 project and
was hoping you'd already have one ready to go. Unfortunately, the only
exception you have is OpenVPN specific, which is unusable by any other
project because it begins "In addition, as a special exception, OpenVPN
18 matches
Mail list logo
