J Lovejoy wrote just now:
> I agree that it would be productive to discuss these at the same time,
I was on the call today as well, and as I mentioned there, I was the person
who initially asked they be considered separately, but as Fontana says
Fontana wrote:
> > Re-reading the GitHub issue,
Hi Richard, all,
I have not had a chance to post the minutes from today’s call, but this
conversation is something we touched upon in terms of planning for post-3.3
release.
I agree that it would be productive to discuss these at the same time, as well
as the larger issue of potentially revisi
I previously wrote, referring to
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655
> as Bradley Kuhn says in a comment to that issue, "drafted somewhat
> differently and therefore presumably should be analyzed differently
> so as not to conflate apples and oranges".
On further thought, there ar
On četrtek, 18. oktober 2018 13:08:59 CEST Richard Fontana wrote:
> But we think from the SPDX perspective adding GPLCC-1.0 is
> justified because its use by projects and appearance in
> downstream products and distributions is likely to grow, even
> if slowly.
I think this is a very likely situat
Heya,
This is a request for addition of the GPL Cooperation Commitment version
version 1.0 to the SPDX list of License Exceptions (
https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html )
1. Proposed Full Name: GPL Cooperation Commitment 1.0
2. Proposed Short Identifier: GPLCC-1.0
3. URL refere
