I wonder if (at least going forward) it makes sense to use an archival URL
service like https://perma.cc/ to create a URL that preserves the relevant site
at the time the license was added to the database?
Social: @luis_in_br...@social.coop
ML news: openml.fyi
On Feb 21, 2023 at 11:55 AM -0800,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 5:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 3:01 PM Luis Villa wrote:
> [...]
>
> > (1) Would SPDX be an appropriate mechanism for representing that opt-out
> clause in a machine-readable way, eg via a short identifier + WITH?
> >
&
Thanks for the links, Richard. I'll try to follow up there though of course
welcome further discussion here as well.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 5:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 3:01 PM Luis Villa wrote:
> [...]
>
> > (1) Would SPDX be an appro
Hi, all-
[Starting here, though I realize SPDX cannot be a complete answer to this
problem. Also *not *on spdx-ai because it isn't about AI models/data, but
happy to move discussion or cc if that makes sense.]
As you all have probably seen, one area of interesting research in machine
learning rig
Where does that group live?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 7:42 AM Kate Stewart
wrote:
> Hi David,
> In the AI/ML special interest group, we're analyzing how to rep
> the AI apps & datasets using SPDX, so we'll probably need to head in
> that direction over time.One of the regulars in that group
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 1:56 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Over at Red Hat, we've been gradually increasing our support of the
> use of "SPDX-License-Identifier:" in source files for various reasons.
>
> We've encountered some situations where a traditional project practice
> might b
Thanks, Steve and Kyle. The link to the draft is particularly helpful.
I don't want to rehash the many, many discussions about which licenses
should be included in the official list; suffice to say, are there any best
practices folks here are aware of for naming these? I saw
https://github.com/nex
👋🏼 hope everyone is doing as well as they can under the circumstances.
Is there any documentation for, or examples of, correct usage of License
Ref? I've been looking this morning and can't find much, but I may just be
looking in the wrong places.
Thanks!
Luis
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You
Quick FYI that several of the links on https://spdx.org/ToolsCommunity still
point to git.spdx.org, which appears to have mostly migrated to
github.com/spdx/.
Wasn't entirely sure where to report this, so sharing here; assuming
someone here can redirect (or fix themselves). Apologies for the noise
Can confirm Richard's recollection of MPL's history around this clause.
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 7:18 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:10:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> > However, 2(e) makes me wonder:
> > > e) Notwithstanding the terms of any Secondary License, no Cont
Regrets - under the weather. See (at least some of you) at Tahoe.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 9:17 AM J Lovejoy wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We have our bi-weekly call today at 11am mountain time (10am Pacific / 1pm
> Eastern)
>
> Agenda as follows:
>
> 1) Open Source Leadership Summit – update on schedule, e
Hi, Jilayne, some comments in-line:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy
wrote:
> Do you (OSI) have any thought on the proposed options below? I suppose I
> should have made #3 the option of simply adding all three variations.
>>> Currently, the SPDX License List includes only the A
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > >The following licenses appear on the SPDX list as "OSI approved" but
> > >are currently not on opensource.org:
> > >
> > >AFL-1.1
> > >AFL-1.2
> > >AFL-2.0
> > >AFL-2.1
> > >APSL-1.2
> > >OSL-2.0
> > >
> > >According to comments by Joh
helping with these issues, as
>>well as the "license-discuss" list for OSI.
>
> I'm following this, but just to be up front: I'm mostly doing other
> stuff at OSI, now that Luis Villa chairs the license working group.
> Luis is more qualified to handle these
14 matches
Mail list logo
