See https://github.com/nexB/spdx-license-namespaces-registry/
and https://github.com/nexB/spdx-license-namespaces-registry/pull/1
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
+1 650 799 0949 | pombreda...@nexb.com
DejaCode - What's in your code?! - http://www.dejacode.com
AboutCode - Open source for open so
Hi Philippe,
I’m a bit lost on what the goal of this is. Can you provide a bit more context.
I looked at a couple entries and noticed, for example, this one:
https://github.com/nexB/spdx-license-namespaces-registry/blob/master/scancode/licenseref-scancode-bsd-innosys.spdx
which then points to t
Hi Jilayne:
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM J Lovejoy wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
> I’m a bit lost on what the goal of this is. Can you provide a bit more
> context.
>
> I looked at a couple entries and noticed, for example, this one:
> https://github.com/nexB/spdx-license-namespaces-registry/blob/maste
The word "registry" always gives me flashbacks. Shared
namespaces offer a unique kind of value, but always come
with carrying costs, scaling stepwise with popularity.
For example, the statutory process of copyright-based
takedown requests, the DMCA, doesn't cover trademark-based
claims. There is
Kyle:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 6:54 PM Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> How will you handle name disputes? How will you deal with
> complaints (to SPDX/LF) about the identifiers being used by
> private parties under their assigned namespaces?
>
> Prior art: https://www.npmjs.com/policies/disputes
Thankyou:
just a quick note on this: the leftpad issue had some very specific and
extenuating circumstances that led to the mess it created which are really not
applicable here. So while the legal team will consider our scenario, leftpad is
not instructive.
> On Mar 13, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Philippe Ombred
bulk of the issue we
> see would go away.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -Original Message-
> 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
-
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.
> -Original Message-
> From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of via
> Lists.Spdx.Org
> Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 2:55 PM
> To: pombreda...@nexb.com; SPDX-legal
> Cc: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> Subject: Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple S
Richard, Jeff:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:32 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> Use of "LicenseRef" (not to mention something like
> NOASSERTION) is a nonstarter for the use cases we are most interested
> in. What we've actually done in some cases is use the nonstandard
> identifiers created by nexB.
A
Richard:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:32 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> This sounds appealing to me (if I'm understanding it correctly). From
> Red Hat's perspective one of the great impracticalities of SPDX has
> been that, after many years of SPDX's existence, its adopted
> identifiers still represe
Hi all,
I’m admittedly a bit late to this party despite having a few thoughts on the
topic. This thread has quite a few aspects to it, starting with Jeff’s initial
proposal, so I’ll try to hit all of them, even though the whole thread is not
below.
First of all, I am noticing some energy aroun
12 matches
Mail list logo
