SPDX Legal call this Thursday
|
J Lovejoy
Hi All,
In preparation for Thursday’s call, please review the following items in advance for our agenda. Announcements and updates (#1) are here only for your information (nothing to discuss on call). We will focus primarily on #2 for purposes of this call and then #3 if we have time: 1) Announcements/updates: a) formatting issue with standard headers on HTML pages for license list has now been fixed (thanks, Gary!) b) LinuxCon Europe is in a few weeks: talks related to SPDX by Jilayne http://sched.co/3xVB and Phil Odence and Dave Marr - http://sched.co/4GGz Also, there will be a Supply Chain Mini-Summit on the Thursday, see more info here: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-europe/extend-the-experience/supply-chain-summit c) Working on proposal for pull request process for license list templates (and possibly other aspects of changes to license list) - will submit a full proposal to legal team when something more concrete is ready (see http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-08-06 for initial discussion/reference) 2) SPDX License List v2.2 is scheduled to be released at the end of this month! a) got some answers back from Fedora on licenses on their list we wanted to add, but couldn’t find text for, etc. Can we add: i) Interbase Public License / Interbase - http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html - link broken, can’t find license. Does Fedora have it archived somewhere? Is this still used / do we need to add to SPDX-LL? ANSWER: Here is an archived copy:https://web.archive.org/web/20060319014854/http://info.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html Firebird is still under this license, still used in Fedora. ii) Sendmail License / Sendmail / http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE - link from Fedora site does not go to license. We intend to add, but wanted to confirm that we have the correct license that you meant due to broken link - can you confirm that this the correct license here: http://www.sendmail.com/pdfs/open_source/sendmail_license.pdf ANSWER: That is the correct sendmail license. We have updated our link. iii) Crystal Stacker License / Crystal Stacker - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CrystalStacker - license on Fedora site does not match license in download. (full explanation was in previous email thread) - please review and see if you agree with therecommendation at the end of the email. ANSWER: Updated the Crystal Stacker entry in the Fedora license list to add the missing disclaimer text. License now matches license in download. I do not believe there is a different source license vs binary license here. JL: further explanation re: previous email thread to be provided on call b) To continue (pick back up) our momentum for adding license exceptions, please review the 5 license exceptions highlighted in light green here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 for potentially adding to v2.2 c) Also, let’s discuss a couple items related to existing exceptions that we didn’t quite get to for v2.1: i) WxWindows - the text in the exception we have versus what is on the OSI site is not the same!! The only differences are: we have "3.1" instead of "3.0" in the first clause; and "your" instead of "the user's" in the second clause. See http://opensource.org/licenses/WXwindows and http://spdx.org/licenses/WxWindows-exception-3.1.html - what we have is consistent with what is here: https://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ · should we accommodate this difference somehow? If so, due to this already being on the license list, this seems like it should be a priority to resolve for v2.1 release ii) Classpath-exception-2.0 - why do we have 2.0 and the note saying it’s typically used with GPL-2.0? the Fedora example has it being used with all GPL versions and there doesn’t seem to have other versions. worth removing the “2.0” in the short identifier? 3) License matching templates/markup: We have a task to add markup to some of the standard headers and have also had input to add/edit markup on existing licenses. As a result of the latter, it has been raised that perhaps the markup could be improved. Before adding more markup (to standard headers, license text or both), it seemed prudent to start a discussion as to whether the existing markup is effective. Please ponder the following questions: a) have you used the existing markup for matching purposes? i) if no, why not? ii) if yes, has it been helpful/effective? Could it be improved, and if so, how? (this will likely involve putting forward a proposal for review) This is a discussion that will not be completed on Thursday’s call and should extend to other groups. As such, I have copied the Tech team here. We will also raise this discussion at the Supply Chain Mini-Summit in Dublin, Thursday afternoon, Oct 8 Please also add thoughts (preferably in a new section or with your initials if added to others) here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing Thanks! Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@... |
|
|