Re: New License/Exception Request: The 0810 Software simple and permissive open source license (rev. 1.0)

Hello Marnix, thank you for your email. You can submit this as a license for consideration in the SPDX license list repo, at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues, for the community to review and evaluate. However, I'd encourage you to take a close look first at the license inclusion

New License/Exception Request: The 0810 Software simple and permissive open source license (rev. 1.0)

Hello dear SPDX moderators, I have created an open-source license that I published through my organisation (0810 Software) and I would like it to get indexed on your list. The license is available at our website:

Re: New License/Exception Request: selinux-nsa-declaration

Thanks Mark, I've created an issue to track this new request at: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/966 Steve On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:42 PM Mark Atwood via Lists.Spdx.Org wrote: > 1.Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. > selinux-nsa-declaration-1.0 > 2.

Re: New License/Exception Request: CAL-1.0 and CAL-1.0-with-exception

Hi Van, thanks for submitting this. I've copied it over to an issue in the SPDX license-list-XML repo, so that comments and input can be aggregated there -- see https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/953 Best, Steve On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 1:30 AM Lindberg, Van wrote: > Hello, > > > >

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 This

New License/Exception Request: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0

Full Name: Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 Short Identifier: BlueOak-1.0.0 Text: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0 Text File: Attached OSI: Not approved. Not submitted. Aside: All other licenses on our published permissive license list, https://blueoakcouncil.org/list, are currently

Re: New License/Exception Request: Link To My SoundCloud Public License

estroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. Von: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Im Auftrag von Bill Granfield Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2019 18:31 An: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Betreff: New License/Exception Reques

New License/Exception Request: Link To My SoundCloud Public License

Full Name: Link To My SoundCloud Public License Short Identifier: LTMSCPL URL: https://github.com/joelotter/ltmscpl This license is NOT OSI-approved and it has NOT been submitted for approval to the OSI. This license is highly permissive and ensures that the author's music is proliferated

Re: New License/Exception Request: Python Imaging Library License

Hi Mark, Philippe, I just had a closer look at this using Alan’s handy License Diff tool, which gave it a close match to MIT-CMU - the only difference between this license and MIT-CMU is: - “and its associated documentation” instead of just “and its documentation” in the first sentence

New License/Exception Request: PNG Reference Library License 2

Hi, Latest release of libpng, 1.6.36, updated its license: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt . To cite the homepage at http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/libpng.html : "libpng 1.6.36 [...] updates the license (identical terms to the zlib license, with the old license appended

Re: New License/Exception Request: Python Imaging Library License

Hi Mark: On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:42 PM Mark Atwood via Lists.Spdx.Org wrote: > Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. > Python Imaging Library License It looks to me as a proper historical permission (HPND https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html ) This has been detected by the

Re: New License/Exception Request: Python Imaging Library License

Hi Mark, I believe that the proposed PILL addition to the SPDX license list will be a lot easier to swallow (!!!) if you put a Version Number on it. Regards, Dennis Clark On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:42 AM Mark Atwood via Lists.Spdx.Org wrote: > Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or

Re: New License/Exception Request: The Star And Thank Author License

That is a really good point, Matija. Qiwihui - can you respond? Are you the author of this license? thanks, Jilayne > On Oct 25, 2018, at 4:54 AM, Matija ?uklje wrote: > > On petek, 19. oktober 2018 08:08:09 CEST qiwihui wrote: >> The basic idea is, whenever using a project using SATA

Re: New License/Exception Request: The Star And Thank Author License

On petek, 19. oktober 2018 08:08:09 CEST qiwihui wrote: > Short Identifier: SATA In any case, should we decide to adopt this license, I would suggest we use a different short ID, as it could cause confusion with the widely known SATA/Serial ATA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

Re: New License/Exception Request: The Star And Thank Author License

On petek, 19. oktober 2018 08:08:09 CEST qiwihui wrote: > The basic idea is, whenever using a project using SATA license, > people shall star/like/+1 that project and thank the author. …this brings up so many questions in me. Would I really not be allowed to use the software, if I don’t +1 it?

New License/Exception Request: The Star And Thank Author License

(Updated with the license attachment.) Full Name: The Star And Thank Author License Short Identifier: SATA URL: https://github.com/zTrix/sata-license/blob/a72e947589ac80df3a0e586f2cb3c154bb9923f0/LICENSE.txt Then license is NOT OSI-approved nor it has NOT been submitted for approval to the

New License/Exception Request: The Star And Thank Author License

Full Name: The Star And Thank Author License Short Identifier: SATA URL: https://github.com/zTrix/sata-license/blob/a72e947589ac80df3a0e586f2cb3c154bb9923f0/LICENSE.txt Then license is NOT OSI-approved nor it has NOT been submitted for approval to the OSI. The basic idea is, whenever using a

Re: New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

I would suggest the following: Full name: copyleft-next 0.3.1 Identifier: copyleft-next-0.3.1 - Richard - Original Message - From: "J Lovejoy" To: "SPDX-legal" Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 12:04:17 AM Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: cop

Re: New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

Richard, As the author of the license, do you have any input/preference as to the full name and identifier? (we usually try to ask the author, if the license is not submitted by the author) Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com On Sep 20, 2018, at 3:39 PM, Richard

Re: New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 10:08:13AM -0500, Kuno Woudt wrote: > > 5. Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved (see: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) or whether it has been > submitted for approval to the OSI and is currently under review. > > The license is not formally OSI

New License/Exception Request: copyleft-next

1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. copyleft-next 0.3.1 2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier. copyleft-next-0.3.1 3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either from the author or a community recognized source.

Re: New License/Exception Request: Exception - Font-Embedding

Hi all, Not having heard a response re: versioning, we discussed on the SPDX legal call today and agreed to version by date. This will be included in the 3.2 release of the SPDX License List, slated for the end of June.

Re: New License/Exception Request: Exception - Font-Embedding

Hi Stefan, Thank you for this license request. It has been approved here and will be added to the next release of the SPDX License List. Best, Brad -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at

RE: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

day, April 5, 2018 8:52 AM To: Dennis Clark <dmcl...@nexb.com> Cc: Atwood, Mark <atwo...@amazon.com>; SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution Mark, Do I understand correctly then, that Amazon created this lic

Re: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

Mark, Do I understand correctly then, that Amazon created this license? While I understand the rationale (as you explained below), which makes sense and I can see others having a similar goal. But, I’m wondering why Amazon made a new license, instead of using something that reaches the same

RE: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

t: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:58 AM To: Atwood, Mark <atwo...@amazon.com> Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution Hi Mark, There is currently a request for this new license at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 I d

Re: New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

Hi Mark, There is currently a request for this new license at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 I don't think we have a target date for completion of the request just yet. Regards, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Atwood, Mark via Spdx-legal <

New License/Exception Request: MIT No Attribution

Hi! * Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. MIT No Attribution * Provide a proposed Short Identifier. MIT-0 * Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either from the author or a community recognized source. https://github.com/aws/mit-0 *

Re: New License/Exception Request: Qt-LGPL-exception-1.1

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:39:54PM +, Kai Koehne wrote: > Short-name: Qt-exception-LGPL-1.1 I've filed a pull request implementing this [1], although I went with the short ID from your subject instead of the one I'm quoting here (more on why in the PR). Cheers, Trevor [1]:

New License/Exception Request: Qt-LGPL-exception-1.1

Hi, SPDX features Nokia-Qt-exception-1.1:  https://spdx.org/licenses/Nokia-Qt-exception-1.1.html The exception is still in use today, but Qt is not owned by Nokia anymore, and therefore the license text got changed to reflect this: http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/tree/LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > Thanks for your response. > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Philippe Ombredanne > wrote: >> The way this is typically worded in OpenSSL and CRYPTOGRAMS would calls >> for this

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

Hi Philippe, Thanks for your response. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > The way this is typically worded in OpenSSL and CRYPTOGRAMS would calls > for this expression IMHO: > OpenSSL OR (BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0) That sounds fine to me. I'm

Re: New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

Jason: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hey SPDX, > > A lot of older OpenSSL code is under the OpenSSL license, but the > author also provides it under GPLv2. Great. The SPDX identifier for > this is obvious. > > Faced with the multitude of requests

New License/Exception Request: CRYPTOGAMS

Hey SPDX, A lot of older OpenSSL code is under the OpenSSL license, but the author also provides it under GPLv2. Great. The SPDX identifier for this is obvious. Faced with the multitude of requests for adding this GPLv2 exception in the various interesting reusable files of OpenSSL, it appears

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

it. Thanks, Jilayne Thanks, Pedro. *From: *<spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org> on behalf of Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org> *Organization: *FreeBSD Project *Date: *Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 20:16 *To: *<spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> *Subject: *New License/Exception Request: B

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

@lists.spdx.org> Subject: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause Hello SPDX License gurus ;) I hereby propose the following license variant. 1) Proposed Full name: BSD 1 Clause License 2) Proposed Short Identifier: BSD-1-Clause 3) Example URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/include/

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-1-Clause

On 30/11/2017 15:26, James C. Roberts III wrote: You might have read this article about OSS license changes that will also be retroactive, but it might be of interest.  I apologize if it is off-point. It is off-point. ___ Spdx-legal mailing list

Re: New License/Exception Request: CDLA-Permissive-1.0

Mike, Legal Team, Request for CDLA-Permissive-1.0 added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions Under Consideration google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 Regards, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at

New License/Exception Request: CDLA-Sharing-1.0

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. Community Data License Agreement - Sharing - Version 1.0 Provide a proposed Short Identifier. CDLA-Sharing-1.0 Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either from the author or a community recognized

New License/Exception Request: CDLA-Permissive-1.0

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. Community Data License Agreement - Permissive - Version 1.0 Provide a proposed Short Identifier. CDLA-Permissive-1.0 Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either from the author or a community recognized

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Actually, after re-thinking this, I am of the opinion that the EPLv2 Exhibit A is worded correctly as is. The statement in question is: “This Source Code is also Distributed under one or more Secondary Licenses, as those terms are defined by the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0: {name

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

lists.spdx.org> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 I think you're right about the intent. The annoying thing here is the ceremonial wording of Exhibit A says nothing about compatibility as such and instead seems to merely express the traditional concept of a dual license

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

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

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

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 Contributor makes > > additional grants to any Recipient (other than those set forth in this > > Agreement) as a result of such

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Regarding EPL-2.0 at ... Richard Fontana: > I think you're right about the intent. The  annoying thing here is the > ceremonial wording of Exhibit A says nothing about compatibility as such and > instead seems to merely express the traditional concept of

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

this before. :) Richard - Original Message - From: "Wayne Beaton" <wayne.bea...@eclipse-foundation.org> To: "Richard Fontana" <rfont...@redhat.com> Cc: "David A Wheeler" <dwhee...@ida.org>, "Kate Stewart" <kstew...@linuxfoun

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

org> on behalf of Wayne Beaton <wayne.bea...@eclipse-foundation.org> Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM To: Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> Cc: Kate Stewart <kstew...@linuxfoundation.org>, SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Subject: Re: New License/Exceptio

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

; <dwhee...@ida.org> > To: "Kate Stewart" <kstew...@linuxfoundation.org>, "Gàry O'Neall" < > g...@sourceauditor.com> > Cc: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:02:51 PM > Subject: RE: New Lice

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

uot;Gàry O'Neall" <g...@sourceauditor.com> Cc: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:02:51 PM Subject: RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 Kate Stewart: Possibly you're using WITH (which is restricted to only refer to except

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote: > The EPL-2.0 has been approved by the OSI and the Eclipse Board of Directors. [...] > The wrinkle, I think, is that there is a provision in the license for > "secondary license" support. A project team may

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

Kate Stewart: > Possibly you're using WITH (which is restricted to only refer to exceptions > when you mean to use AND?? > Does the following look like what you're trying to represent? > EPL-2.0 > EPL-2.0 AND GPL-2.0 > EPL-2.0 AND (GPL-2.0 with Classpath-exception-2.0) Those are *syntactically*

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

nses and exceptions is common. > > > > Gary > > > > *From:* spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@ > lists.spdx.org] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Beaton > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 7:17 PM > *To:* Richard Fontana > *Cc:* spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org &

RE: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

of licenses and exceptions is common. Gary From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 7:17 PM To: Richard Fontana Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

gt; compatibility feature of MPL 2.0 is not described or (I think) generally > thought of as an "exception". > > Richard > -- > > From: "Wayne Beaton" <wayne.bea...@eclipse-foundation.org> > To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org > Se

Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

is not described or (I think) generally thought of as an "exception". Richard - Original Message - From: "Wayne Beaton" <wayne.bea...@eclipse-foundation.org> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:52:44 PM Subject: New License/Excep

New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0

The EPL-2.0 has been approved by the OSI and the Eclipse Board of Directors. We'd obviously like to see it included in the SPDX license list. FWIW, we're updating our legal documentation requirements to make heavy use of SPDX. 1. License name: Eclipse Public License 2.0 2. Proposed

Re: New License/Exception Request: ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 06:22:37PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > As far as I can tell SPDX currently has no way to report this > information. There's some previous discussion in [1,2]. The current recommendation is to define a custom ID for the patent rider and use that [3], for example:

New License/Exception Request: ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception

INTRODUCTION: Many Facebook projects, including the widely-used React.js, have a different license approach than others: They use a stock OSS license *with* a special patent-related rider (in the case of React.js, this is in a file named PATENTS). This patent rider is asymmetric, which has led

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Thank you for your help, Sam et al., and for taking the time to respond. The information and insight you have provided is very valuable to me and I'm sure will prove useful in shaping the way crypto licenses are approached. I will take more time to digest this and hope you were able to enjoy the

New License/Exception Request: EUPL-1.2

Hello, A new version of EUPL was released : - Full Name: European Union Public License 1.2 - Short Identifier: EUPL-1.2 - Website: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eupl/home - Licenses: PDF

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Thanks to all of your for your feedback. It's very helpful for me as I begin navigating these new waters. I will find this rooftop and I will sing. But I cannot do it alone. And so now I rally. If you can share my idea with others, I'm open to speaking with anyone I can about the concept and how

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Hi Josh, I agree with Philippe here (SPDX looks to use "in the field" as a key factor in adding a license to the list), but I do in fact think your idea of inserting BTC or other crypto addresses in copyright and/or author statements is an interesting one. I hope you won't take this result as

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Thank you for this valuable information, Philippe. I will pursue your advice. Thank you all for your time. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas wrote: > > > For the license to receive

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

mple: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or >>> "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this >>> guideline.") >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> From:

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

t; "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this > guideline.") > > > > From: "Josh Habdas" <jhab...@gmail.com <mailto:jhab...@gmail.com>> > To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org <mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> &g

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Hi Josh, I think the point here is that you can adopt your proposal of using using a BTC wallet address in the copyright-holder field without declaring a new license at all. Since the intent is to use the exact same terms as the ISC, why not just propose using wallet addresses in copyright or

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Quoting Josh Habdas (2017-07-11 04:47:30) > Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is > this request being tracked for discussion? You got a response from Richard Fontana, and you confirmed that this is not a new license, only a new copyright holder. What is left to

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

t;>> >>> >>> ---------- >>> >>> From: "Josh Habdas" <jhab...@gmail.com> >>> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM >>> Subject: New License/Exception Re

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

e markup for this >> guideline.") >> >> >> -- >> >> From: "Josh Habdas" <jhab...@gmail.com> >> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org >> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM >> Subject: New Licen

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

ts reserved." or > "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this > guideline.") > > > -- > > From: "Josh Habdas" <jhab...@gmail.com> > To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org > Sent: Wed

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

; or "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this guideline.") - Original Message - From: "Josh Habdas" <jhab...@gmail.com> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM Subject: New License/Exception

New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

For consideration during the next SPDX Legal Team meeting. *Full name:* BTC License *Identifier:* BTC *URL:* https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5c04083f01 *OSI:* Not OSI-submitted nor approved *Explanation:

New License/Exception Request: Linux-Note

Dear SPDX-legal list, Could you please consider adding an exception to the set of recognized license exceptions for the text at the start of the Linux kernel COPYING file. Two of the senior kernel maintainers, Thomas Gleixer and Greg Kroah-Hartman brought the issue to our attention.

Re: SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

J Lovejoy wrote: > I will connect the license author with the FSF and we’ll go from there. Great! > Of course, FSF’s input should be included, but also we don’t want to > discourage any free software enthusiasts - especially, as is the case here, > when it is indicative of a government trying to

Re: SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

Thanks Bradley for raising this, as it was something I had started to wonder about given the feedback we got from Malcolm’s reading of the license. I will connect the license author with the FSF and we’ll go from there. Of course, FSF’s input should be included, but also we don’t want to

Re: SPDX should not list licenses that might infringe copyright themselves (was Re: New License/Exception Request)

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:54:44AM -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Richard Fontana wrote: > >It appears to be for the most part a translation of GPLv3 into Spanish. > Malcolm Bain confirmed: > >>As Richard says, this is 90% or more a direct translation of GPLv3. > > Is the translation

Re: New License/Exception Request

DX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>, "Malcolm Bain" <malcolm.b...@id-lawpartners.com> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 4:49:55 PM Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request Thanks Jilayne, As we discussed on today's call, I reviewed a Google translation of the lic

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hola, We would like to add this license to the SPDX License List. None of us reviewing the license are fluent Spanish speakers. Could you verify that this is an open source license according to the OSI definition? I’ve also copied Malcolm Bain here, as he may be able to help answer this

New License/Exception Request

As of 13 May 2015, W3C uses the Software and Document License for its code: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document > Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. W3C Software and Document License > Provide a proposed Short Identifier.

RE: New License/Exception Request

pdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>; Sébastien Règne <reg...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request Legal Team, I strongly feel that this new license does not need to be added to the SPDX license list, and the very most it deserves would be a note on the existing related license alrea

Re: New License/Exception Request

Legal Team, I strongly feel that this new license does not need to be added to the SPDX license list, and the very most it deserves would be a note on the existing related license already on the list. I think we might want to have a short conversation about vanity licenses, and whether we should

New License/Exception Request

Hola SPDX, Envió datos para Nueva Solicitud de licencia New License 1.- Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. Licencia Pública General para Bolivia 2.- Provide a proposed Short Identifier. LPG-Bolivia 3.- Provide a functioning url reference to the license or

Re: New License/Exception Request

Sébastien, I wrote the npm code that gave the warning you received. I contributed that code unofficially, as a member of the npm community. I don't speak for SPDX or npm here. Just for myself. From a community point of view, it was very important to choose a metadata standard that recognized

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi, 1. *LPRAB* and *WTFPL-2.0* have the same author (Sam Hocevar ). So if the English version is an open source license, the French counterpart must be as. 2. This license isn't popular, but it's used by some people : I found about fifty

Re: New License/Exception Request

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Sébastien Règne wrote: >> I propose to add the license Rien À Branler, that is the official French >> translation of WTFLP v2. >> Full Name : Licence Publique Rien À Branler >> Short Identifier : LPRAB >> Website : http://sam.zoy.org/lprab/ >>

RE: New License/Exception Request

-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Sébastien Règne Sent: 19 September 2016 19:14 To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: New License/Exception Request Hello, I propose to add the license Rien À Branler, that is the official French translation of WTFLP v2. * Full Name : Licence Publique Rien À

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Jilayne, Apologies for that. I'm still fairly new to mailing lists, haha! I've joined it just now. Thanks, Marcus  On Sep 14 2016, at 2:57 pm, J Lovejoy

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Marcus, Sorry for the delay in this actually getting send to the legal team, but your email got caught up in the bounce filter and I didn’t get to it until now. Could I convince you to join the SPDX legal mailing list to avoid this going forward?

New License/Exception Request

Hi there, The following is my license request: 1. *Proposed Name:* Things I Made Public License 2. *Proposed Short Identifier:* TIM (Coincidentally MIT in reverse) 3. *URL Reference:* http://license.thingsima.de/LICENSE 4. *License text file is attached below.* 5. *OSI Approval:* License is not

RE: New License/Exception Request rightsstatements.org

call. Best, Paul Madick SPDX Legal Team co-lead From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of James C. Roberts III Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:15 AM To: Maarten Zeinstra <m...@kl.nl> Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New L

Re: New License/Exception Request rightsstatements.org

While I have all of you on this thread, I thought I’d jump in to ask if anyone is interested in a web-based speaking opportunity to California licensing and transactional lawyers. I’m the Chair of the State Bar’s Licensing Interest Group. We have monthly conference calls, built around a 15-20

Re: New License/Exception Request rightsstatements.org

Hi Maarten, Thanks very much for communicating the various http://rightsstatements.org/ resources, which provide some deep analysis of copyright and licensing issues. This is a lot for anyone to absorb quickly, and various members of the legal group have added these resources to their reading

RE: New License/Exception Request

ug2...@gmail.com<mailto:aug2...@gmail.com>> Subject: New License/Exception Request Date: March 10, 2016 at 2:22:37 AM PST To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Please refer to the attached proposal.pdf and thank you for your consideration. Reza (Ra

RE: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Possible New License/Exception Request

that always confuses me! -Original Message- From: Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 10:03 AM To: Robinson, Norman Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Wor

RE: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Possible New License/Exception Request

Ombredanne [mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:58 AM To: Robinson, Norman Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Possible New License/Exception Request On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:12 PM

Re: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Possible New License/Exception Request

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Gisi, Mark: >> The absence of Public Domain from the license list was not an oversight. A >> fair amount of discussion took place to decide how to handle a public domain >> designation. The current practice is to create

Re: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Possible New License/Exception Request

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Robinson, Norman wrote: [...] > While it could be argued UPL or public domain or CC0 1.0 > (creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) (SPDX CC0-1.0) does that, I > believe citing the reasoning it is public domain, because it is a US >

RE: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Possible New License/Exception Request

Gisi, Mark: > The absence of Public Domain from the license list was not an oversight. A > fair amount of discussion took place to decide how to handle a public domain > designation. The current practice is to create a LicenseRef (a user defined > license reference that is local to an SPDX

Re: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Possible New License/Exception Request

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Robinson, Norman wrote: > Greetings! > > In review of SPDX specification (spdx.org/), I’m not seeing a clear > annotation for U.S. Public Domain. Could you please clarify if such a > license currently exists and I have failed to understand or

Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear

Philippe Ombredanne twisted the bytes to say: Philippe> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:07 PM, dmg wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom Incorvia >> wrote: >>> I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list. >> >> What

  1   2   >