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 -- in fact I think it was that discussion that led to the change.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Clark" <dmcl...@nexb.com> To: "J Lovejoy" <opensou...@jilayne.com> Cc: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> 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 an important license, and as I mentioned in a previous email: "This initial request is just for the EPL-2.0 License (the easy part). The other issues will be discussed by the legal team, which may result in the definition of one or more additions to the Exceptions list and/or Notes to be associated with the License." The request is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 I don't think we want to hold up putting this license on the list because of any controversy about how to interpret specific aspects of the license text and whether it calls for more extended use of the license expression in actual practice. Thanks, Dennis Clark nexB Inc. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:13 PM, J Lovejoy < opensou...@jilayne.com > 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” scenario for the GPL family of licenses. Our plan at the end of that calls was to present this to the general meeting for further input, a bit more time, and then implement if there was no further concerns. The general meeting last week did not yield any further concerns, although most people attending were already part of the conversation. In any case, we can clearly see from the mailing list, that we have not bottomed out on this issue and proposal. We are also waiting for further guidance from the FSF on some of the questions that came up on the various calls. While it’d be great to have this resolved for the next release, we cannot rush this and we can also not delay the next release any longer than it has already been taking. I would ask that we continue this discussion on the mailing list. But in the meantime, we need to move forward with the XML work and next release. The call tomorrow will focus on picking up that work and what still needs to be done. I would encourage people to focus there energy there as well. Call information can be found here, as always: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
