Re: SPDX should take a stronger stance against vanity/promotional licenses

as they can automate pulling down new list versions for their builds---which I helped them do. They'd prefer if new versions of the list don't trigger stampedes of bug reports about new warning messages or validation errors. That's about it. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland

Re: SPDX should take a stronger stance against vanity/promotional licenses

Those of us building with broader needs can fork or superset. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3315): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3315 Mute This Topic: https:/

Re: SPDX should take a stronger stance against vanity/promotional licenses

ght licenses here because package manager metadata warnings are annoying. I take it the distro people might be irked in similar ways. Both probably seem insubstantial, looking over from the other side. But a few kB of XML file in a GitHub repo is pretty cheap cure. -- Kyle Mitchell, attor

Re: documentation/examples of License Ref?

Luis, `LicenseRef-*` is technically part of the license expression syntax, too. But it mostly comes up in the context of (private, shared) SPDX XML files. I'm not aware of any package managers that leverage it as a way for package authors to express their own license terms. -- Kyle Mitchell

Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal

. But I haven't seen any libre option that stacks up to Zoom's reliability. Other closed competitors---Hangouts especially---never met that bar, either. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply

Re: [spdx] SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines

to the _why_ behind rules and proposed rules. Is the overbearing issue, from the SPDX-side point of view, still too many license submissions, too fast to handle? -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply

Re: SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines

expression syntax, or variations of it, but that's it. If the namespace proposal's too complex or esoteric, or too tightly coupled to the XML-file use case of SPDX, I'd fear divergence with the fast-moving packager and utility people, myself probably included. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland //

Re: meeting minutes from today

ms: > > { "license": "UNLICENSED" } > > Consider also setting "private": true to prevent > accidental publication. I'd strongly recommend that other manifest standards define magic values, too. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933

Re: An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

r packages within it. `@blueoak/list` is a scoped package name. Some scopes exist on the public registry, and some exist only in private registries. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Onl

Re: New License/Exception Request: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Of course. For those following along, I am @kemitchell on github.com. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2557): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2557 Mute

New License/Exception Request: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

that the license has been made public. If need by, I will be happy to follow up with links to a couple examples, as they appear. For more information on the license's features and history, see: https://blueoakcouncil.org/2019/03/06/model.html -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933

Re: CC NC/ND licenses and "general attributes of an 'open source' license"?

with respect to a candidate license as a means of developing precedent. Compare and contrast a very recent conversation on OSI's license-review, starting here: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-September/003535.html -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney

Re: Unlicense / Unlicensed

C]E IN (.+)$/` for "some other license", and started parking bikes. Ideal in all respects? No, hardly. But note that `UNLICENSE` is not a valid SPDX expression. The identifier is `Unlicense`, mixed-case. npm's validation and correction algorithms offer the correct values exactly. -- Ky

Re: Package licensing part I - the approach - was Github example

ons, which also makes a better project. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: Should "Exceptions" include "additional restrictions"?

ergy out there, in a particularly unmanageable way. I, for one, would be very tempted to abuse it. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: Net-SNMP license stack v. using license expressions

not exactly as directed! If there is a conference or other meeting where the topic is likely to come up, I'd like to mark my calendar, too. Was disappointed to miss the meeting up in NorCal last time around. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933

Re: New License/Exception Request

I know how hard it can be to work in someone else's native language. Thank you for working in mine! Best, K -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal