Greetings spdx-legal,
The OSI recently approved three licenses as Open Source:
1) eCos License version 2.0 (under the 'Legacy Approval' process)
Text of approved license contained within:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html
Note that the interesting part
Greetings spdx-legal,
The OSI recently approved three new licenses:
Licence Libre du Québec – Permissive (LiLiQ-P) v1.1
Licence Libre du Québec – Réciprocité (LiLiQ-R) v1.1
Licence Libre du Québec – Réciprocité forte (LiLiQ-R+) v1.1
(of some historical significance as the first non-English-langua
Hi Richard,
Thanks for sending this! Kate and I were just talking about how we needed to
create some kind of process to make sure that we add any new OSI approved
licenses to the SPDX License List and coordinate on the short identifiers.
In any case, it would be great to use this opportunity
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:24:34PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote:
> > The OSI recently approved three licenses as Open Source:
> >
> > 1) eCos License version 2.0 (under the 'Legacy Approval' process)
> > Text of approved license contained within:
> > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-revie
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:32:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > > 2) Free Public License 1.0.0
> > > Text of approved license contained within:
> > > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-August/001104.html
> >
> > We have added as of v2.2 - http://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD
On 11/17/2015 12:51 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:32:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
2) Free Public License 1.0.0
Text of approved license contained within:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-August/001104.html
>>>
>>> We have a
Did this ever get resolved?
On 11/17/2015 12:51 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:32:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
2) Free Public License 1.0.0
Text of approved license contained within:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-August/001
Not really. I respect your desire to keep the name of the license
you've been using and appreciate your policy objections to the name of
the Free Public License; however I have no inclination to ask the OSI
to change the name of the approved license (which seems to differ from
0BSD in one respect,
On 12/04/2015 07:54 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Not really. I respect your desire to keep the name of the license
> you've been using and appreciate your policy objections to the name of
> the Free Public License; however I have no inclination to ask the OSI
> to change the name of the approved li
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 12:57:43AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> As far as I can tell, OSI continues to be unaware that unlicense.org or
> creative commons zero even exist.
The OSI is aware of them. There's actually been interest for some time
in getting OSI approval of a license (or license-like in
On 12/05/2015 06:36 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I have now modified http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical to
> include Zero Clause BSD License (0BSD) with a cross reference to the
> Free Public License, and I have also added the following prefatory
> text to http://opensource.org/licenses/FP
HI All,
Having a bit of a hard time following this, as I think Rob may have confused
who was speaking on which organization’s behalf (Richard is coming from the OSI
perspective, here)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the suggestion seems to be:
OSI has now posted the "Free Public License 1.0.0" an
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 07:30:18PM +, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Correct me if I’m wrong, but the suggestion seems to be:
>
> OSI has now posted the "Free Public License 1.0.0" and wants to use the short
> identifier FPL-1.0.0
Well that identifier (or something else that bears some similarity to
th
The tl;dr of this whole email is "I humbly ask SPDX to retain both its
original long and short names for zero clause BSD as the only SDPX
approved name for this license".
On 12/07/2015 01:56 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 07:30:18PM +, J Lovejoy wrote:
> 3) While I have n
Richard,
Has anyone from OSI gone back to the folks who submitted the “Free Public
License” and ask if they mind or care if the name that Rob prefers is used
instead of the one they suggested? Seems like that could potentially be an
easy solution.
Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@j
(Forwarding this to spdx-legal.)
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:56:09AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Hi Jilayne,
>
> No but that was my thought as well after reading Rob's response. I
> will check.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 08:16:15AM +, J Lovejoy wrote:
> > Richar
Thanks Richard - that would be great. Let us know what you find out!
Jilayne
> On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> (Forwarding this to spdx-legal.)
>
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:56:09AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> Hi Jilayne,
>>
>> No but that was my thought as wel
Hi Jilayne,
No but that was my thought as well after reading Rob's response. I
will check.
Thanks,
Richard
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 08:16:15AM +, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Has anyone from OSI gone back to the folks who submitted the “Free Public
> License” and ask if they mind or car
Having more of a think on this - It may be more appropriate for Rob to talk to
the “Free Public License” folks.
Rob - your thoughts?
Cheers,
Jilayne
>
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:56:09AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> Hi Jilayne,
>>
>> No but that was my thought as well after reading R
I don't think that is a good idea.
I have described the situation to Christian Bundy, the person who
submitted the Free Public License, with a link to this discussion. He
said he would get back to me by the end of the week. If Christian does
not recommend otherwise I will keep things as they curre
I'm visiting a sick friend in another state with spotty connectivity
("roaming" data caps are apparently still a thing in small towns) and
don't get home until late sunday. But I'd be happy to when I get home.
Thanks,
Rob
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:31 AM, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Having more of a thin
Back home from traveling, I believe the ball is still in your court on this?
Rob
On 12/10/2015 08:58 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I don't think that is a good idea.
>
> I have described the situation to Christian Bundy, the person who
> submitted the Free Public License, with a link to this disc
I discussed the issue with Christian Bundy. He does not wish to change
the name of the license. With respect to the Zero Clause BSD License I
have therefore retained the existing approach on the OSI website:
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical (Zero Clause BSD included
in list, with "0BSD
That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License to the same
effect on the upcoming release of the SPDX License List.
Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 12:24 AM, Richard Font
Jilayne:
> That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
I agree. In fact, I think listing both "0BSD" and "FPL-1.0.0" is a great
solution, especially if the SPDX website includes notices with each similar to
the text at https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0:
> Note: There is
On 12/17/2015 12:38 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
> That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
I don't care what OSI does.
> I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License
> to the same effect on the upcoming release of the SPDX License List.
Please don't. Pretty please?
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2015 12:38 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
>> That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
>
> I don't care what OSI does.
>
>> I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License
>> to the same effect on the upcoming
On 12/17/2015 02:46 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2015 12:38 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
>>> That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered.
>>
>> I don't care what OSI does.
>>
>>> I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD
Hi,
> > 3) OSET Foundation Public License version 2.1
> > We don't quite have a canonical license document here yet (the license
> > that was approved was a conceptually-typo-corrected version of a
> > redline document).
>
> Great - we’ll need the license text - do you want to just let us know wh
Hi Rob,
I did not add any explanatory text as per your request. Like you said, we can
cross that bridge if/when we get questions.
By way of background or reminder for those who don’t know all the history:
The point of the SPDX License List is to provide a reliable way to identify
common ope
Thank you Richard. The SPDX legal team will review the licenses for
inclusion on the SPDX license list.
Best,
Paul Madick
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
On 1/17/2016 5:50 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Greetings spdx-legal,
The OSI recently approved three new licenses:
Licence Libre du Québec – Permis
ox.net>>
Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 8:06 PM
To: Richard Fontana mailto:font...@opensource.org>>,
"spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>"
mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>>
Subject: Re: New OSI approved licenses
Thank you Richard. The
; To: Richard Fontana , "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" <
> spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
> Subject: Re: New OSI approved licenses
>
> Thank you Richard. The SPDX legal team will review the licenses for
> inclusion on the SPDX license list.
>
> Best,
>
al@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>"
mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>>
Subject: Re: New OSI approved licenses
Yes, changing should not be inconvenient; I recently created those
pages and haven't publicized the URLs beyond updating the global lists
of OSI approved
34 matches
Mail list logo
