Re: update Re: current issues - meeting Thursday

Hi folks, Can we get some comments on these? Would be nice to get them accepted and start working on files. Thanks, Jilayne On 7/13/23 1:36 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: Thanks for the productive call today! I'm revising the list below of issues that need input :) The following licenses have alread

update Re: current issues - meeting Thursday

Thanks for the productive call today! I'm revising the list below of issues that need input :) The following licenses have already been reviewed by Steve as a +1 to add and just need one other person to weigh in as per our "used in a major distro" criteria of two reviewers: - Knuth-MMIXware

Re: New SPDX social media handles, blog and brand update

brand update Hi, Kind reminder to provide your feedback on what the new SPDX brand should look like. I know some questions may sound a bit odd or ethereal, but they do help the design team come up with logos that represent the values with which the community ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is

Re: New SPDX social media handles, blog and brand update

p with proposals which in turn I'll >> circulate to the best of my ability to capture everyone's feedback. Bear >> also in mind that we want to move fast for these cosmetic changes to be >> ready by the time we announce the major update. >> >> Thanks for you

Re: New SPDX social media handles, blog and brand update

> circulate to the best of my ability to capture everyone's feedback. Bear > also in mind that we want to move fast for these cosmetic changes to be > ready by the time we announce the major update. > > Thanks for your help. > > Cheers, > > PS: Should you want t

New SPDX social media handles, blog and brand update

hich in turn I'll circulate to the best of my ability to capture everyone's feedback. Bear also in mind that we want to move fast for these cosmetic changes to be ready by the time we announce the major update. Thanks for your help. Cheers, PS: Should you want to connect with me fi

FAQs update

Hi all, I deviated slightly from the plan as discussed at our last call regarding updating the FAQs. I went ahead and made a PR here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/1692 as working in the Google doc was getting a bit unwieldy. Steve - can you merge that so people can then iterat

Re: License list 3.13 release status update

A quick update to note that the issues in the license list publisher have been resolved. Many thanks as always to Gary O'Neall for helping to address this today! Version 3.13 of the SPDX License List has now been tagged in the license-list-data repo at https://github.com/spdx/license-list

License list 3.13 release status update

Hello spdx-legal list, I wanted to share a quick update on the version 3.13 release of the SPDX License List. We have tagged and pushed the 3.13 release in the license-list-XML repo. [1] However, an issue has come up with the license list publisher automation that carries the tagged / released

SPDX Tools - update bookmark and request for review and feedback

Greetings SPDX Tech and SPDX legal teams, A new URL for the SPDX online tools is now be available at https://tools.spdx.org. Please change any bookmarks or links from http://spdxtools.sourceauditor.com or http://13.57.134.254/app/ to https://tools.spdx.org. A new version of the online SPDX

Re: Update on project: Validate license cross references

is will entail knowing all possible values, and any update on this values will require updating the projects that parse this information. So, we would like to know your thought process on this, and if storing this information is of utmost importance. MDB My opinion is that the isMatch operator sho

License list - 3.9 timing update and pending issues

Hello spdx-legal list, In light of the upcoming updates to the SPDX website hosting, we are pushing back the release date for the 3.9 license list by two weeks. We are now targeting the release for *May 15*, with an end date for new PRs targeted for *May 10*. This also gives folks a bit more time

Re: update to documentation, use of wiki

xisting, but this could mean we could still opt to record stuff there in the future if it’s deemed the best place?) > - proposals we are hashing out, but aren’t appropriate for a Github issue > > In the spirit of having only one place to update - I’m thinking we might move the

Re: update to documentation, use of wiki

or a Github issue In the spirit of having only one place to update - I’m thinking we might move the call info to the Github readme and remove from the wiki page?? more likely to be seen there. Thoughts? ideas?? Thanks, Jilayne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent t

update to documentation, use of wiki

one place to update - I’m thinking we might move the call info to the Github readme and remove from the wiki page?? more likely to be seen there. Thoughts? ideas?? Thanks, Jilayne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2725): https

meeting tomorrow POSTPONED to next week, Dec 19th / release update

Hi all, Due to some unforeseen circumstances, both Steve and I are not available tomorrow. Given this would be our last meeting for 2019 (unless people wanted to meet on Dec 26th?), I'd like to postpone to next week, Dec 19th. Please adjust your calendars accordingly. Also, we have not had e

SPDX Tools Update

I plan on working on an update to the SPDX tools tomorrow, Sunday 29 Sept. This may impact the availability of the SPDX tools and the license submittal feature. Regards, Gary - Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. M

meeting minutes and update for 3.4 release

Hi all, Today’s meeting minutes have been posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-12-12 We have resolved most of the 3.4 issues and PRs that we could. I’ve also gone through and tagged things as appropriate for

Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes

From: J Lovejoy Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 10:17 AM To: Gary O'Neall Cc: Steve Winslow ; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes Thanks Gary, Steve - in process of updating now and adding text files. Gary - I followed the workflow instructions you

Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes

suggested approach. > Jilayne – if you could test this out and see if it works. > > I also noticed that the branch used for these pull requests are behind the > commits in the license-list-XML repo. I think if you check the “update “ box > in the tool, it will update the reposit

Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes

these pull requests are behind the commits in the license-list-XML repo. I think if you check the “update “ box in the tool, it will update the repository for you. As far as the stale files - I’m not sure this is the best approach (in fact, I’m pretty sure it is not the best approach) you can

Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes

Hi Jilayne, for #1 I'll take a look at the XML files and will add comments in the PRs. But, someone else with more Git / Github skills than me may need to weigh in on separating out files per your second bullet point in #1, I'm not sure how to handle that... Steve On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:00 PM

Re: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes

Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 3:00 PM To: SPDX-legal Subject: 3.3 release update, meeting minutes Hi all, We are a bit late on the 3.3 release and need some help getting it over the line. We did a good job of prioritizing what to finish up (preferably this week) for 3.3 and labeling

3.3 release update, meeting minutes

Hi all, We are a bit late on the 3.3 release and need some help getting it over the line. We did a good job of prioritizing what to finish up (preferably this week) for 3.3 and labeling anything we didn’t get to for 3.4 on the last call. Meeting minutes posted here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/

reminder, update

HI all, We have the monthly SPDX General call in about 15’ - this is of special interest to the legal team, as the GSOC student working on the XML translator is presenting! Our bi-weekly legal call follows after that. version 3.2 of the SPDX License List is now out!! So, we’ll try to keep to

update

Hi all, My apologies, but I got buried with other work and have not kept up on the 3.1 release tasks this week. I’ll get caught up and we’ll get this out next week. Sorry to be the logjam. Jilayne ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists

Re: Update FAQ after license list 3.0

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:53:41AM +0100, Matija Šuklje wrote: > I was browsing through the FAQ and found out that since we > (re)renamed the GPL family in license list 3.0, we haven’t updated > the texts in the FAQ yet. +1 on updating the FAQ. I think we also want to explicitly list the spec and

Update FAQ after license list 3.0

Hi all, I was browsing through the FAQ and found out that since we (re)renamed the GPL family in license list 3.0, we haven’t updated the texts in the FAQ yet. Most specifically, this question should be amended: > Why do I only see GPL-2.0 on

Re: License list release 2.7 or 3.0? (was: update on license list release)

I don't recall any specifics, just that in Nov/early Dec the tech team told us on a call that it was contemplating some potentially backward-compat-breaking changes. Not sure if those were ultimately agreed upon or what they were, but iirc the legal team took it as received wisdom and bumped to 3.0

Re: License list release 2.7 or 3.0? (was: update on license list release)

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 02:27:19PM -0500, Brad Edmondson wrote: > We discussed on the Dec. 7 call and landed on 3.0 -- I think partly > because the spec was leaning toward 3.0 as well… Are we planning on breaking backwards compat with the spec? That would be fun for me when I'm wearing my spec-ed

Re: License list release 2.7 or 3.0? (was: update on license list release)

We discussed on the Dec. 7 call and landed on 3.0 -- I think partly because the spec was leaning toward 3.0 as well and we wanted to track somewhat closely. https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2017-12-07 Best, Brad -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com On T

update on 3.0 release

Hi all, A quick update on progress for the 3.0 release: - Gary and I are taking care of the final pull requests and other associated clean-up. Gary is going to generate another preview to double check a few things, make sure everything is rendering correctly and then we will make the final

License list release 2.7 or 3.0? (was: update on license list release)

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:44:44PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > A handful of us have been working away on the 3.0 release of the > SPDX License List. I think this can be a 2.7 release, with 3.0 to follow if/when some currently-deprecated identifiers are finally dropped. Are there any breaking change

update on license list release

Hi all, A handful of us have been working away on the 3.0 release of the SPDX License List. A few updates: in the soon-to-be old license list repository: https://github.com/spdx/license-list - there are no open issues (any that are relevant going forward,

Re: update on only/or later etc.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote: > No tool can guarantee that always determines if "or any later version" > applies. > Certainly not licensee, which is the tool used automatically by GitHub. > Indeed, licensee generally only looks at the LICENSE file - it doesn't even > *

RE: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on only/or later etc.)

; From: Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com] > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:26 AM > To: Wheeler, David A > Cc: g...@sourceauditor.com; W. Trevor King ; SPDX-legal > > Subject: Re: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update > on > only/o

RE: update on only/or later etc.

meone creates another project with unclear licensing. > > Really, do you have data to back this? Note also we should not care if > "someone creates another project with unclear licensing". > We should care if someone creates another project with unclear licensing > that some

Re: update on only/or later etc.

David, On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote: > David A. Wheeler: >> > To answer that question, "it's at least GPL-2.0, and might be more" >> > s important information, and I think it's information that the SPDX >> > license expression should include. > > Philippe Ombredanne [m

Re: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on only/or later etc.)

Trevor, On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 7:56 AM, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:33:23PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: >> Many package managers use SPDX license expressions >> to indicate the package license. E.g., NPM does: >> https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json >> by using

Re: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on only/or later etc.)

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Wheeler, David A wrote: > g...@sourceauditor.com [mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com] >> David - I'm curious if the "OR-MAYBE" proposal solves the issue you are >> raising as well. > > Yes, it does. If most everyone were to agree to add this, I am reluctantly OK. Techn

RE: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on only/or later etc.)

g...@sourceauditor.com [mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com] > David - I'm curious if the "OR-MAYBE" proposal solves the issue you are > raising as well. Yes, it does. --- David A. Wheeler ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.s

RE: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on only/or later etc.)

al-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of W. Trevor King > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 10:56 PM > To: Wheeler, David A > Cc: SPDX-legal > Subject: Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on > only/or later et

Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on only/or later etc.)

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:33:23PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Many package managers use SPDX license expressions > to indicate the package license. E.g., NPM does: > https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json > by using the "license:" field - which is *NOT* a SPDX license file. > According

RE: update on only/or later etc.

David A. Wheeler: > > To answer that question, "it's at least GPL-2.0, and might be more" > > s important information, and I think it's information that the SPDX > > license expression should include. Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com] > Is this really important to know this fact in

Re: update on only/or later etc.

David: You are bringing good points. Here are my counter points: On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Philippe Ombredanne: >> I think there is no contention there at all. > > Respectfully: There *IS* contention. I'm contending. > >> A summary (e.g. a license expression) can

RE: update on only/or later etc.

Philippe Ombredanne: > I think there is no contention there at all. Respectfully: There *IS* contention. I'm contending. > A summary (e.g. a license expression) cannot ever capture all the nuances > of the details This is a lossy "compression" by construction... Sure, but all summaries,

Keep partial conclusions out of license expressions (was: update on only/or later etc.)

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:45:10AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > A license detection result can be: "I am 95% sure this is > GPL-2.0-only but it could be GPL-2.0+: please review me to fill in > your conclusion." > > So detection does not have to be binary as in either 100% right or > 100% wr

Re: update on only/or later etc.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote: > J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]: >> If this is a potential problem once GPL-2.0 is changed to GPL-2.0-only, then >> it is currently a problem. > > Yes indeed, that's my point :-). > >> And perhaps by altering the current identifi

Re: "unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators (was: update on only/or later etc.)

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:51 AM, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:10:02AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: >> Just a reminder to all: when someone places a copy of the GPL, >> version 2 alongside source code files this does not make the >> licensing ambiguous; clearly there is a valid lic

"unclear version" and OR-MAYBE operators (was: update on only/or later etc.)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:10:02AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Just a reminder to all: when someone places a copy of the GPL, > version 2 alongside source code files this does not make the > licensing ambiguous; clearly there is a valid license… > > Any scenario you could interpret, we have a way to

RE: update on only/or later etc.

J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]: > If this is a potential problem once GPL-2.0 is changed to GPL-2.0-only, then > it is currently a problem. Yes indeed, that's my point :-). > And perhaps by altering the current identifier (GPL-2.0) to be more explicit > (GPL-2.0-only) we will expose

Re: update on only/or later etc.

> On Nov 17, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Wheeler, David A wrote: > > J Lovejoy: > >> Do NOT add a identifier or operator, etc. for the found-license-text-only >> scenario where you don’t know if the intent of the copyright holder was >> “only or “or later” and are thus left to interpret clause > > I

RE: update on only/or later etc.

t; From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wheeler, David A > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:20 PM > To: brad.edmond...@gmail.com > Cc: SPDX-legal > Subject: RE: update on only/or later etc. > > Brad Edmondson [mailto:b

RE: update on only/or later etc.

Brad Edmondson [mailto:brad.edmond...@gmail.com] > I think your points are good ones, but it seems to me they go to the separate > issues of "file:detected license" and "package:concluded license."  > The clarity of the spec argument is aimed at making the "file:detected > license" case more exp

Re: update on only/or later etc.

J Lovejoy writes: > Hi All, > > Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to try and > come to a resolution everyone can be happy with, taking into > consideration the ask from the FSF and the many thorough discussions > we’ve had on the mailing list and calls. This is similar t

Re: update on only/or later etc.

Hi David, I think your points are good ones, but it seems to me they go to the separate issues of "file:detected license" and "package:concluded license." The clarity of the spec argument is aimed at making the "file:detected license" case more explicit, and if it leaves tools with NOASSERTION fo

RE: update on only/or later etc.

J Lovejoy: > Do NOT add a identifier or operator, etc. for the found-license-text-only > scenario where you don’t know if the intent of the copyright holder was “only > or “or later” and are thus left to interpret clause I disagree, sorry. > - we don’t need to solve this right now and we can a

RE: update on only/or later etc.

Jilayne Lovejoy : > Do NOT add a identifier or operator, etc. for the found-license-text-only > scenario where you don’t know if the intent of the copyright holder was “only > or “or later” and are thus left to interpret clause 9  This "resolution" doesn't solve the problem. Since tools are not

Re: update on only/or later etc.

Great. We will start calling you two Kings Solomon. From: on behalf of Jilayne Lovejoy Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 7:38 PM To: SPDX-legal Subject: update on only/or later etc. Hi All, Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to try and come to a resolution

RE: update on only/or later etc.

ow: > -Original Message- > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of W. Trevor King > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:53 PM > To: J Lovejoy > Cc: SPDX-legal > Subject: Re: update on only/or later etc. > >

Re: update on only/or later etc.

ts.spdx.org [spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] > on behalf of J Lovejoy [opensou...@jilayne.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:37 PM > To: SPDX-legal > Subject: update on only/or later etc. > > Hi All, > > Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to tr

RE: update on only/or later etc.

. From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] on behalf of J Lovejoy [opensou...@jilayne.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:37 PM To: SPDX-legal Subject: update on only/or later etc. Hi All, Kate and I just had a call with Richard Stallman of the FSF to

RE: update on only/or later etc.

forward to revisiting those issues in the future. Paul From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: SPDX-legal Subject: update on only/or later etc. Hi All, Kate and I just had a call

Re: update on only/or later etc.

fore “GPL-2.0" becomes invalid to give people a > chance to update. This will also encourage people who have been > sloppy to fix their sloppiness. I think this “deprecation with an eventual removal” approach is part of all of the proposals, and is not unique to the “coin new per-ver

update on only/or later etc.

eprecated identifier for a period before “GPL-2.0" becomes invalid to give people a chance to update. This will also encourage people who have been sloppy to fix their sloppiness. Add GPL version 2 or later back to the SPDX License List as it’s own entry with the short identifier of “GPL-2

Update on license list XML work

Greetings all, Since we didn't have much time to discuss the license list XML work on this week's legal call, I thought I would send an email update to the distribution list and point out a few remaining issue and next steps. Over the past couple of weeks, we enhanced the SPDX

Re: EPL-2.0 final text (was: meeting tomorrow, general update)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:08:15PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:10:44PM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote: > > Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice > > > > "This Source Code may also be made available under the following > > Secondary Licenses when the conditions for

EPL-2.0 final text (was: meeting tomorrow, general update)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:10:44PM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote: > Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice > > "This Source Code may also be made available under the following > Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth > in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

I had intended to attend the call, but entered the coordinates incorrectly in my calendar. My apologies for missing. The EPL-2.0 as it exists on the Eclipse Foundation website contains the actual and final text. landing page: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0 html: https://www.eclipse.org/org/

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

Indeed. While we didn’t get to discuss this on the call today as we ran out of time, I think it’s a no-brainer that it should be added to the license list and that aspect probably does not need discussion :) If there is some oddity as to how it gets added due to the Exhibit (which I admittedly

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

Richard, Trevor, Thanks very much for the heads-up about the license text change and corresponding details. Yes, Unversioned license changes are, ahem, exciting. Regards, Dennis Clark On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:36:01PM -0400, Richard F

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:36:01PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org URL, and > specifically Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first > discussed on spdx-legal… Unversioned license changes… exciting :p. I also see that the initial pos

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

J Lovejoy" Cc: "SPDX-legal" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:53:56 PM Subject: Re: meeting tomorrow, general update Jilayne, Legal Team, I would like to suggest that we include in our meeting agenda the Request to add EPL-2.0 to the SPDX License List. This is

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

Sep 13, 2017 at 6:13 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > Hi All, > > A quick update and reminder for tomorrow’s call. > > On our last call, we had come up with a viable (seeming) proposal to > respond to the FSF’s request for clarification in SPDX identifiers for the > “only x version” sce

meeting tomorrow, general update

Hi All, A quick update and reminder for tomorrow’s call. On our last call, we had come up with a viable (seeming) proposal to respond to the FSF’s request for clarification in SPDX identifiers for the “only x version” scenario for the GPL family of licenses. Our plan at the end of that calls

meeting minutes from last week (update on "only" issue)

The minutes have now been posted from last call: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2017-07-20 As other threads have come up (directly / indirectly) about the transition to using GPL-2.0-only as the short identifier - please n

License XML tooling update

o go back and re-convert (e.g. we find some bug in the conversion software). My next task will be to update the license generator to produce the spdx.org/licenses website based on the new XML format. Please let me know if you have any questions, comm

quick update, meeting later

s that, given the international audience here, we’ll get some helpful input and advice to this issue! As for an update on the XML review - we are down to 27 to go, with a handful marked as “needs edit” or “needs legal discussion” - so hopefully the call today will make some headway on those and

XML conversion review update

Hi all, Just a quick update on the last stretch of converting the license list to the XML format: * there are now only 30 pull requests left!! Some of these license may have been reviewed and have minor questions. For those helping with the final review, please put specific comments and label

Re: Update

t! It will be difficult until all the files are in one place > to do it in one pass, though. > > Kris > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017, at 10:58, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > > Thanks Kris for the update and pointers to the code. > > > > I'll give it a try - bu

Re: Update

printing. When we're ready for that, I hope I can help out! It will be difficult until all the files are in one place to do it in one pass, though. Kris On Tue, Feb 7, 2017, at 10:58, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote: > Thanks Kris for the update and pointers to the code. > > I'll giv

RE: Update

Thanks Kris for the update and pointers to the code. I'll give it a try - but it looks like there is a good amount of detail with access to the source, I don't expect any problems. I'm also warming up to Node as a decent infrastructure for the tooling. Do you have any too

Re: Update

It looks for an SPDX spreadsheet in > ./license-list and attempts to run the process for every license (or > exception) it finds that *does not exist* in ./src/licenses or > ./src/exceptions > > There is a branch (`git checkout current`) on the license-tool > repository that h

Update

the process for every license (or exception) it finds that *does not exist* in ./src/licenses or ./src/exceptions There is a branch (`git checkout current`) on the license-tool repository that has all the XML files I have previously converted checked in, so for future batches one should be able to up

Re: XML license review update & questions

x/licens >e-list-XML/pull/229 >- ODbL-1.0 hex-encoded chars: https://github.com/spdx/licens >e-list-XML/pull/156 >- CDDL-1.0 hex-encoded chars: https://github.com/spdx/licens >e-list-XML/pull/37 > > Jilayne, keep pushing us on this, and I'll keep helping when

Re: XML license review update & questions

@gmail.com On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:55 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > Hi All, > > Quick update and a couple questions I came across in the XML markup that I > am hoping we can resolve via email. > > There are 89 remaining pull requests; 28 of those have been reviewed and > tag

XML license review update & questions

Hi All, Quick update and a couple questions I came across in the XML markup that I am hoping we can resolve via email. There are 89 remaining pull requests; 28 of those have been reviewed and tagged as “has acknowledgement” so holding those for the option of adding markup for acknowledgement

meeting minutes and update

Hi All, Meeting minutes from today are posted here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2016-08-18 <http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2016-08-18> Update on the XML license review: down to ~95 to go!!! Our next call is Sept 1, so we’ve got some work to do! Her

XML files update

After doing a basic comparison of the text content of the XML license bodies to the template files, there were quite a few that needed fixing. I was able to come up with some code to automate many of the fixes and fixed the rest by hand. I've pushed the updated XML files to Github, so all the PR

Re: Update on All-Permissive license request

J Lovejoy wrote: > We discussed your request on today’s call and the license will be > accepted for v2.4 of the SPDX License List. Thank you! -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Lisp, Jazz, Aïkido: http://www.didierverna.info ___ S

Re: Update on All-Permissive license request

I sent it to SPDX-legal but I was told it was "awaiting moderation". Thanks for the update! Colin On 02/02/16 14:12, J Lovejoy wrote: > Hi Didier, > > I’m a bit lost on where this email started (not on the SPDX-legal mailing > list, perhaps), but in any case, your licen

Update on All-Permissive license request

Hi, I noticed that All-Permissive's status is "accepted for v2.3". But version 2.3 is out and its not on the list. Other licenses with the same status tag (e.g., curl, Info-ZIP) *are* on the list. I checked the git repo and I see no mention of All-Permissive. Has it slipped through the cracks

Re: Update on All-Permissive license request

t;. > > Thanks for the update! > > Colin > > On 02/02/16 14:12, J Lovejoy wrote: >> Hi Didier, >> >> I’m a bit lost on where this email started (not on the SPDX-legal mailing >> list, perhaps), but in any case, your license request is not lost :) >

Re: Update on All-Permissive license request

Hi Didier, I’m a bit lost on where this email started (not on the SPDX-legal mailing list, perhaps), but in any case, your license request is not lost :) It’s status on the tracking Google worksheet was, however, incorrectly noted as being included on v2.3, which it clearly was not. Consultin

Re: Update on All-Permissive license request

Colin Macdonald wrote: > I noticed that All-Permissive's status is "accepted for v2.3". But > version 2.3 is out and its not on the list. Other licenses with the > same status tag (e.g., curl, Info-ZIP) *are* on the list. > > I checked the git repo and I see no mention of All-Permissive. > > Ha

Re: Update on matching markup/joint call

Kris, No worries. I have moved the joint call with legal and the tech team (at the tech team’s usual Tuesday time frame) back a week to Feb 9th as a result. SPDX-Legal should have gotten a revised invite. Thanks for the update! Jilayne > On Jan 31, 2016, at 10:16 PM, spdx-tech-r

Ninka, an update

hi everybody, I am sorry I have been quiet during the last 6 months, but sometimes work gets on the way of doing fun work :) I want to announce that there have been some changes in Ninka lately. I just pushed to github http://github.com/dmgerman/ninka scripts that will allow you to generate exc

Re: Proposed Update to SPDX License Expression Language

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, dmg wrote: > the other one is by the KDE foundation, and this one applies specifically to > the GPL-3: Oops. I should have said the LGPLv2.1 or the LGPLv3. So this is more like a (LGPL v2.1 OR LGPLv3) WITH (+ modified approved by the KDE Foundation) --dmg -- -

Re: Proposed Update to SPDX License Expression Language

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:38 AM, J Lovejoy wrote: > *Thus, by having the “+” as an operator, one could, theoretically, apply > it to *any* license on the SPDX License List (I shudder…). Someone might, > for example, declare the license for a file as: BSD-2-Clause + * > > *I would (vehemently) a

update and agenda for meeting tomorrow

Hi All, A couple updates and the agenda for tomorrow’s call: Minutes from May 1st meeting have been posted here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-05-01 Fedora List review: we had our second special call today with Tom Incorvia, Dennis Clark, Paul Madick, and Jilayne - got thr

  1   2   >