on the points above to ensure SPDX stays a
welcoming, relevant and consensus-driven community.
Best wishes,
Sebastian Crane
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#1680): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1680
Mute This Topic: https
Dear all,
Today I noticed that I had received what appeared to be a spam/scam
email from a 'saber chibani23 at gmail dot com'. The 'To' field
contained the email addresses of a number of SPDX Legal Team members.
The SPDX mailing lists are publically accessible, so there doesn't
need to have been
Dear all,
Recently the SPDX License Diff browser extension has ceased to work
for me. Selecting a piece of text and running the plugin displays the
'Processing...' progress bar, but no report is produced.
It hasn't been updated this year, and I'm running it with Firefox
102.6.0esr (64-bit) on
Dear all,
Today, I saw this plop into my inbox and thought that it would also be of
interest to many of the SPDX Legal Team members. The Open Source Way is both an
entertaining and educational podcast, and given its open source licensing
slant, I had suspected that Shane would feature on it at
Dear all,
I'm continuing with my travels tomorrow, and thus must unfortunately send my
regrets for the SPDX Legal Team meeting. Hope to see you next month!
Best wishes,
Sebastian
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3260):
tely remember cases in the past where licenses were accepted and then
> we had to wait a long time for a PR (or Steve usually went ahead and created
> one).
>
> -- zvr
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of
> Sebastian Cr
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 09:25:38AM -0700, McCoy Smith wrote:
> I think CC0 is probably the best attempt to come up with a truly comprehensive
> PD dedication, but that requires including a backstop highly permissive
> license attached. Whether that (or things like it) ought to be classified as a
Dear Russ,
The points you make are very pertinent indeed. I think that statements
of the third type should probably be included in the SPDX License
List, as they are usually very distinctive and their wording may make
a difference to their legal interpretation.
If we were to add a Public-Domain
Dear Gary,
> I've always assumed the AND and OR operators to be commutative and
> the SPDX Java tools take full advantage of the commutative
> properties when comparing license expressions.
>
> I would welcome a pull request to Annex D to clarify this since at
> least one member of the community
Dear Karsten,
> „the and any this you license software for that not use with may code such
> agreement other terms under are rights work your all from shall source
> including copyright provided will without its party conditions must which
> licensee notice version distribute licensed program
Dear all,
I thought there was supposed to be a Namespace Proposal meeting at
this time today, but I've joined the video call and there are only a
couple of others here.
Best wishes,
Sebastian
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online
Dear Ria,
> LEGALLY-EQUIVALENT-TO bothers me since "the producer of the SPDX
> document containing such a Relationship has made the claim that they
> believe the two to be legally equivalent" - if I understand that these
> tags are being assigned by the vendor, do I trust their legal
>
Dear all,
On our joint SPDX Legal/Tech meeting today, one of the use-cases that
was discussed was No.6:
"issue of capturing variants of licenses which match the same listed
license per the matching guidelines"
It was one of the use-cases for which solving with licence namespaces
was least well
Dear all,
Unfortunately, I will not be able to make tomorrow's SPDX Legal Team meeting. In
fact, I will not have an internet connection for the rest of the week, but I'll
be back online next week!
If Gary happens to be around, https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/pull/370
is ready to be
Dear Jilayne,
> We only have changed the major number when there was a major change - adding
> license expression operators for 2.0; changing to XML format and major
> change to GNU identifiers or 3.0. I don't really foresee a major change of
> that nature on the horizon (good!). This would mean
This is a wonderful improvement! It's an announcement worthy of the
'topic' for our #spdx IRC channel :)
Best wishes,
Sebastian
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3107): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3107
Mute This
Dear Steve,
> On last week's Legal Team call, we agreed to switch the timing for team
> calls going forward, as discussed in this thread. So instead of alternating
> Thursdays, Legal Team calls will be the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month.
>
> In a moment I'll send a cancellation of the old
Dear Steve,
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> Thanks for checking on this. I think this is meant to be the schedule --
> let me know if the invites aren't lining up correctly:
>
> * General Meeting: First Thursday of every month, 11AM-noon Eastern Time
> * Legal Team: Every other Thursday, noon-1PM Eastern
Dear Steve,
Thanks for sending this out! Since the SPDX Outreach Team meetings had
been moved in 2021 to fit in with the Legal and General meetings, I'm
wondering if you could offer some clarification.
The invitation says that the Legal Team will be fortnightly from the
first Thursday of
Dear Karen,
> We know that the licenses require that license information and notices be
> retained, as Mike Dolan pointed out. (In GPL-2.0 this text is "keep intact
> all the notices that refer to this License").
Indeed, the full text of the license should always been available when
using SPDX
Dear Jilayne,
> Now that SPDX ids are used more widely and we know a bit more about
> how scanning tools identify license headers in total - I think we can
> remove this section altogether. I don't think SPDX needs to make a
> statement either way and projects can make their own call, as we've
>
Dear all,
My pull request regarding the BSD-1-Clause license is up and ready to
be merged (https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/1350). :)
I've also been looking through the LicenseListPublisher repository to
fix the bug I mentioned at the last Legal Team meeting, but it turns
out I was
Dear Jilayne,
> Hi all,
>
> We have our regular call today at noon EDT.
>
> We'll catch up on any other "intros"; I think Warner was going to give
> an update on the SPDX work in FreeBSD (if you are ready to do so), and
> get organized with the latest issues in the repo.
I'll do my best to come
Dear Karsten,
Sorry; I can't read your email - it appears to be encrypted. The online
mailing list archives are also unable to show your email's content.
Now I'm even more curious to know what 'effective license' is :)
Best wishes,
Sebastian
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all
Dear all,
> Thanks for the quick feedback and I'm glad to see that we basically
> all seem to agree that,*yes, the SPDX License List should have enough
> coverage of licenses that a free/open operating system (or the kernel
> itself) could rely on use of SPDX license identifiers. *Yeah!
In full
25 matches
Mail list logo
