Hi Kyle,
Thanks for having a look.
As to your question: we had a discussion on one of the many calls we discussed
this topic and ran the hypothetical of what if there were no “rules” or the
rules were very relaxed. One extreme might look like this: anyone can add a
license, any time and the
All,
I am both impressed by the work Jilayne and others have put
into the guidelines, and in strong sympathy with the general
thrust Philippe reports from the conference. I didn't go to
FOSDEM, but judging from Philippe's notes, I wouldn't have
had much else to add.
I keep returning to the
William,
Sorry to air-drop into this conversation. I've been lurking
fairly reliably, but have been too slammed to keep an active
voice in all the various places where people are typing.
Is there any kind of summary or similarly short,
approachable artifact you could point me to for the current
Philippe,
Did you actually read the proposed draft? It’s has more clarity as to key and
practical aspects we already look for (e.g., stable license text) and relaxes
the must-be-free requirement we have been operating under.
And what William said.
I’m not sure what your specific concern is.
Philippe,
I agree with you but I think it is orthogonal, the SPDX license
inclusion guidelines would govern what goes in the official SPDX license
namespace, it does not restrict what could go into other license
namespaces (which would be implemented by the other proposal currently
being
Hi Jilayne:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:59 PM J Lovejoy wrote:
> I’m sending this to both the legal and general mailing lists to ensure
> greatest visibility. The legal team has come up with a final draft of the
> license inclusion guidelines based on various conversations and feedback
> over
Hi all,
I’m sending this to both the legal and general mailing lists to ensure greatest
visibility. The legal team has come up with a final draft of the license
inclusion guidelines based on various conversations and feedback over the past
8 months of intermittent discussion.
The pull
