Steve Winslow

First off, the formal review for this one has been lingering for far, far too long, and that's my fault. I want to apologize sincerely to the license submitters for...

Discussed on legal team call 2024-04-11, agreed to add. # License Inclusion Decision ## Decision: - [X] approved - [ ] not approved ## Name Peer Production License ## License...

Hi @rnjudge, I wasn't on this call (and don't have any particular knowledge in this area!) Just sharing a couple of thoughts: My understanding was that this was intended to...

I guess, at a minimum, I would say let's wait to see whether this public comment draft from CISA actually becomes finalized / adopted. I know there were a significant...

Personally I'm +1 to add this. I admit to some mild queasiness about the idea that the four-word phrase "Freely redistributable without restriction" will show up in the middle of...

Thanks @ramcq, I'm re-opening this issue based on your comment above. For others on the SPDX legal team (e.g. @jlovejoy @seabass-labrax @bsdimp @Pizza-Ria or others), feel free to weigh in...

@jlovejoy Given @richardfontana's request above, I'm going to move this one to 3.23. I think if it's still pending at that point on the Fedora side, perhaps we close it...

@zvr I don't think I have a particular concern about the idea of having "Component" as a generic concept of a collection of non-versioned / undifferentiated related Packages. That said,...

Thanks @xsuchy! @goneall, when you have a minute to take a look at this as well as the related changes to the publisher at https://github.com/spdx/LicenseListPublisher/pull/216, I'd welcome your thoughts in...

Draft outline from call: * SBOMs: communicating externally about the licenses applicable to your software distributions; link out to other SPDX documentation / collateral about SBOM use cases beyond the...