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

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 authorized? Is it in compliance with the FSF's published meta-license of the GP

RE: New License/Exception Request

and Happy New Year” in the old days), malcolm _ De: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfont...@redhat.com] Enviado el: jueves, 22 de diciembre de 2016 22:56 Para: brad edmondson CC: J Lovejoy; David Nina M.; SPDX-legal; Malcolm Bain Asunto: Re: New License/Exception Request It appears to be for

Re: New License/Exception Request

It appears to be for the most part a translation of GPLv3 into Spanish. - Original Message - From: "Brad Edmondson" To: "J Lovejoy" Cc: "David Nina M." , "SPDX-legal" , "Malcolm Bain" Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 4:49

Re: New License/Exception Request

Thanks Jilayne, As we discussed on today's call, I reviewed a Google translation of the license web page. Based on quick overview, it seems to be pretty standard copyleft. I agree that we should plan on adding it to the SPDX list. Best, Brad -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond..

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 questi

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. W3C-Software-2

Re: New License/Exception Request

I won't be able to make today's call. But on the topic of "vanity licenses", I would like to add that the WTFPL, while flippant and contrarian, doesn't seem like a vanity license to me. There is a standard form, and developers from different communities use it. That despite the fact it's easier to

RE: New License/Exception Request

This would be a good topic today if Jilayne thinks we have time. Paul From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Clark Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:15 AM To: J Lovejoy Cc: SPDX-legal ; Sébastien Règne Subject: Re: New License

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 exce

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi All, We have dealt with licenses that have different language translations before. Where the translations are considered official and equivalent, we don’t add a new SPDX license or identifier, as it is the same license. For example, see: https://spdx.org/licenses/LiLiQ-R-1.1.html

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 "dis

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 pr

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/ >> OSI-approved : No >

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

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 Branler - Short Identifier : LPRAB - Website : http://sam.zoy.org/lprab/ - OSI-approved : No - Program that uses this license : https

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? http://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx

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 O

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 Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request

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 Dennis, Thanks for the reply and I agree it might not be the best fit for SPDX, although with some creative thinking it could fall into the scope of the project. Rightsstatements.org is not an identifier for open works, like open source or open content. It is a way to more specifically comm

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 lis

New License/Exception Request rightsstatements.org

Hi, I am new on SPDX legal list. I work at Kennisland, a think tank in the Netherlands and work on copyright and technology issues. Mostly on the open content aspects of licensing and hardly ever on open source issues. I also work a Creative Commons Netherlands. I understand SPDX list allows u

RE: New License/Exception Request

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 (Ray/Rex) Fatahi, PhD Wes

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

license - 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, Gove

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

From: Philippe 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, 2

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

rom: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 6:06 PM To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Possible New License/Excep

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 a LicenseRef (a use

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 > Government work, will be mo

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 file)

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

al-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Robinson, Norman Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:19 AM To: i...@linuxfoundation.org Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) specification for Public Domain, Government Works? Poss

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 find it? Any > links o

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 about we start with some empirical evidence, rat

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

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 find it? Any links or clarification appreciated! As a federal government employee inv

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 about we start with some empirical evidence, rat

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

Eric Weddington [mailto:eric_wedding...@trimble.com]: > Where SPDX is at now, is that it says one thing, but does another. > Yes, the website says that the SPDX License List is a list of "commonly found > open source licenses".  But if we're going to talk about restriction use then > it's too lat

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

2) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015; Time Zone: GMT-6 From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Brad Edmondson Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:50 AM To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Reques

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

I again want to thank everyone for the thoughtful discourse on this subject matter. This will be put on the legal team agenda to discuss on one of our upcoming meetings and we will “hear” all of the opinions that have been represented in the thread, including the point regarding the CC licenses

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

should never aim to be. Change > the website language to read “commonly found licenses, including open > source”. > > > > I very much appreciate the “wider tent” that SPDX is aiming for. > > > > Eric Weddington > > > > *From:* spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailt

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

gal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Tom Vidal Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:02 AM To: Wheeler, David A Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear So, should we add it or not? I can appreci

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

Good morning: I concur with Phil Odence and David Wheeler on the ground that the language "at issue" is an operative license term governing --and in this case restricting--conduct, not simply disclaiming a warranty. As such, it violates Freedom 0 as Matija initially pointed out. Here is the se

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

> [1] https://www.google.com/search?q="intended for use in the design%2C > construction%2Coperation or maintenance of any nuclear facility" That's a completely different legal text. I agree that "not intended for use in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of any nuclear facility

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

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 about we start with some empirical evidence, rather than anecdotal. > Can you quantify what "all the time" means? How abo

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

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Tom Incorvia > wrote: > > I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list. > > Agreed for me: this should be in either as a license or an exception > I think the idea of using exceptions f

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

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Tom Incorvia wrote: > I see this license all the time. Let’s put it on the list. Agreed for me: this should be in either as a license or an exception > There are many licenses on the SPDX list that do not strictly meet the FOSS > rules – if we restrict to pure

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

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 about we start with some empirical evidence, rather than anecdotal. Can you quantify what "all the time" means? --dmg -- --dmg --- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine

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

:44 AM To: Philip Odence Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear Well, 1. this is not a common license, 2. As David W already stated, it clearly breaks the objective of SPDX (see: https://spdx.org/licenses/ "The SPDX License List i

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

e > Ombredanne > Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 3:12 AM > To: Sam Ellis > Cc: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" > Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Sam Ellis wrote: > > Please consider adding the

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

-boun...@lists.spdx.org>> on behalf of Philippe Ombredanne mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com>> Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 3:12 AM To: Sam Ellis mailto:sam.el...@arm.com>> Cc: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>" mailto:spdx-legal@lists.s

Re: New License/Exception Request

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:26 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > Bill, > > Thanks for your request to add a new license to the SPDX License List. > > As it turns out, this license is already on the SPDX License List; In > spite of quick-loader’s characterization of this license as being > “deformed,” this is

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

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Sam Ellis wrote: > Please consider adding the following license to the SPDX license list: > Full name: BSD 3-clause w/nuclear disclaimer > > Short identifier: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear > > URL: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/licenses/bsd.txt > > OSI approved:

Re: New License/Exception Request

Bill, Thanks for your request to add a new license to the SPDX License List. As it turns out, this license is already on the SPDX License List; In spite of quick-loader’s characterization of this license as being “deformed,” this is an exact match to the MIT License. As per our Matching Gui

New License/Exception Request

This license is not currently in the SPDX License List. https://www.npmjs.com/package/quick-loader https://github.com/edankwan/quick-loader/blob/master/LICENSE Bill Schineller VP Engineering - KnowledgeBase Black Duck Software 781-425-4405 508-308-5921 (cell) bschinel...@blackducksoftware.com

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

Great discussion. Comments below. Paul Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis quoted this “NoNuclear” license: > “You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended > for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear > facility.”. Matija: >

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

Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis quoted this “NoNuclear” license: > “You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended > for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear > facility.”. Matija: > FWIW, this would most probably fail the fre

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

te: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:22 AM To: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>" mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>> Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis scripsit: “You acknowledge th

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

Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis scripsit: > “You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended > for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any > nuclear facility.”. FWIW, this would most probably fail the freedom 0 of the Free Software defin

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

Hi, Please consider adding the following license to the SPDX license list: Full name: BSD 3-clause w/nuclear disclaimer Short identifier: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear URL: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/licenses/bsd.txt OSI approved: No Explanation: This is a variant of BSD-3-Clause commonly f

Re: New License/Exception Request

Le 18/03/2016 03:21, J Lovejoy a écrit : > Hi Antoine, > > Thanks! > > We discussed this on the SPDX Legal team call this morning and I have > included below what we came up with for how to add the various > translations and versions to the SPDX License List. We need to > identify the full name o

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Antoine, Thanks! We discussed this on the SPDX Legal team call this morning and I have included below what we came up with for how to add the various translations and versions to the SPDX License List. We need to identify the full name of the license, the short identifier (see http://spd

Re: New License/Exception Request

Le 17/03/2016 06:27, J Lovejoy a écrit : > Hi Julien, Antoine, > > So, let me see if I have this right in terms of the different > versions/translations and a proposed SPDX identifier, etc. > > Canonical version is French (http://artlibre.org/) - LAL-1.3 - the > English translation (http://artlib

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Julien, Antoine, So, let me see if I have this right in terms of the different versions/translations and a proposed SPDX identifier, etc. Canonical version is French (http://artlibre.org/) - LAL-1.3 - the English translation (http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/) would be considered the same

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Jilayne, many thanks for your response. Yes, the canonical FAL is the french one (1.3). http://artlibre.org/licence/lal And yes, the equivalent is the english translation (1.3) http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en This translation is sure because of the official compatibility with the Creative

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hello Antoine and Jilayne I'm so glad this will make the SPDX list. And thanks also Jilayne for commenting the ChooseAlicense Github issue. On 08/03/16 01:34, antoine moreau wrote: > I think that the others 1.3 versions should be added > http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/pt > http://artlibre.org/li

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hello Julien and Antoine, Julien submitted the Free Art License 1.3 to be included on the SPDX License List (see below). We discussed this recently and would like to add the license, but noticed there are 8 variations on this page - http://artlibre.org/ - we are not clear if these are differen

Re: New License/Exception Request

Legal Team, I have added the request for the Free Art License 1.3 (FAL-1.3) to our request tracking gsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 Sorry, but I will not be able to attend our meeting on Thursday, Feb 18. Regards

New License/Exception Request

1. Full name: Free Art License 1.3 2. Identifier: FAL-1.3 3. Url: http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ 4. (see attachment FAL-1.3.txt) 5. OSI-approved: No 6. The Free Art License (and its original french version "Licence Art Libre") has gained popularity among the years especially in the artist

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Harald, I’ve added this to our review for our next legal call on Jan 21. In the meantime, could you please provide us with a little more information about the license? It would be helpful to hear your view as to the need for this license or exception to be included on the SPDX License Lis

RE: New License/Exception Request

http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview. Thank you again for your time in submitting the request. Alan D. Tse -Original Message- From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Rob Conley Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Jilayne, Thanks for the reminder. Not much progress on this, and in the meantime, I discovered another issue : it's the wrong clause that is referenced in theexception : it should be clause 2 and not 3. They (at least some of them (see [1]) are aware of it, but haven't propagated the change, it

New License/Exception Request

Please add the following license to the list. Identifier: "NLOD-1.0" Full name: "Norwegian Licence for Open Government Data (NLOD)" Text: http://data.norge.no/nlod/en/1.0 -- Harald Groven web developer www.utdanning.no Centre for ICT in education | +47 905 18 625 harald.gro...@iktsenteret.no _

Re: New License/Exception Request

Didier, Thank you for submitting your request, which has been added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions under consideration workbook: GNU All Permissive License added to the Licenses under consideration worksheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s

Re: New License/Exception Request

Rob, Thank you for submitting your request, which has been added to the SPDX Licenses and Exceptions under consideration workbook: Open Game License v1.0a added to the Licenses under consideration worksheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?

New License/Exception Request

Full name: GNU All Permissive License Short Identifier: GAPL OSI-Approved: no URL: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html Explanation: This license is a short all-permissive one. Although I'm not qualified to certify this,

New License/Exception Request

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. The Open Game License v1.0 Provide a proposed Short Identifier. OGL-1.0 Prov

Re: New License/Exception Request

Hi Jilayne, Thanks very much for your precise analysis of the request. I'm not involved in the project, but I know some core contributors (in CC) so I should be able to discuss that directly with them. We'll get back to you ASAP on this. Thanks again, Camille Le 09/07/2015 20:21, J Lovejoy a

Re: New License/Exception Request

HI Camille, We discussed this on the legal call today and would like to add this exception but discovered a glitch. The exception text does not indicate a version of LGPL, but includes the language: “. . . and distribute that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the add

New License/Exception Request

Hi, Please find below the elements for the addition of a new exception to the SPDX list. Best regards, Camille - Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception : "OCaml linking exception" - Provide a proposed Short Identifier : "OCaml-exception" - Provide a functioning url refere

Re: New License/Exception Request

The two previous UK versions: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/1/ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ Canada federal versions http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada (2.0; would have to look for 1.0) Prov

Re: New License/Exception Request

HI Mike, Thanks for the info. Regarding the other versions of OGL, could you provide links to those? As for non-software licenses and the project mentioned below, could I ask you to join an SPDX Legal call in order to discuss, perhaps one of the calls in July? Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team

Re: New License/Exception Request

On 06/05/2015 02:33 AM, Matt Smith wrote: 1.Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. *Open Government License* 2.Provide a proposed Short Identifier. *OGL* I'm not sure it should matter for SPDX but noting that there are two previous versions of the OGL from the UK and n

New License/Exception Request

1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. Open Government License 2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier. OGL 3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either from the author or a community recognized source. http://www.national

Re: New License/Exception Request

Dennis, Thank you for suggesting the new license; it is a duplicate of the ISC License, which is already on the SPDX License List: http://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html Regards, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Dennis Decker Jensen wrote: > Full Name: ISC OpenBSD License >

Re: New License/Exception Request

Legal Group, The new license request has been added to: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 Regards, Dennis Clark dmcl...@nexb.com On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Dennis Decker Jensen wrote: > Full Name: ISC

Re: New License/Exception Request

or alongside software releases. >> >> What does FOSSology make of the license? FOSSology 2.6.1 reports the >> license as LGPL. >> >> From: Cristian Martinez >> Date: Friday, 17 April 2015 02:55 >> To: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" >> Su

Re: New License/Exception Request

PL. > > From: Cristian Martinez > Date: Friday, 17 April 2015 02:55 > To: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" > Subject: New License/Exception Request > > Dear Sir or Madam, > > Please find enclosed the requested information supporting the inclusion of >

Re: New License/Exception Request

OSSology make of the license? FOSSology 2.6.1 reports the license as LGPL. From: Cristian Martinez mailto:cristian.marti...@univ-paris-est.fr>> Date: Friday, 17 April 2015 02:55 To: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>" mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.or

New License/Exception Request

Full Name: ISC OpenBSD License Short Identifier: ISC-OpenBSD URL: http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup OSI-Approved: No There is no standard license header. The attached license.template is from the OpenBSD project i

<    1   2