list of license related issues


J Lovejoy
 

Hi SPDX legal and tech teams,

I was trying to get my head around any and all issues/PRs/topics that are license related. Please let me know if I've missed anything on the list below!

Given the pending 2.3 release, it feels like a bunch of stuff is attempting to get shoe-horned into the release, which is not always a good idea.  Also given the tech team spent some time discussing the namespace proposal on Tuesday and the legal is set to discuss it this morning, I think we ought to prioritize what we want to work on for 2.3 versus what can be pushed out to 3.0.  We can't do everything and rushing never yields a good result.

I have attempted to make a list below and put in order of priority with my thoughts as to why:

1. License namespaces: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/681
This stems from a proposal from some time ago, and has been waiting to be finalized for awhile as well. I fear that we are getting a bit off piste from the original proposal (Mark Atwood - can you please weigh in here and re-center us!?!) but we should try to prioritize closing this out.

2. Update Matching Guidelines: (no PR yet, I'm working this in a Google doc first)
This is may not be on anyone's radar (and has definitely fallen off the to-do list a few time), but they are woefully out-of-date so I'm moving this up to visibility and priority! I have begun working on a "draft" of edits in a Google doc, to then turn into a PR. Will share soon.

3. Snippets and SPDX-License-Identifier tags: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/464
This seems like something that may be better discussed in the context of 3.0 ?

4. Adding NONE to the License Expression syntax: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec
This has been around for awhile. Given NONE and NOASSERTION are already defined (if people would read said definitions...) in the Spec, I see this as a potentially simply lift and move in terms of where they "live". That being said, it's still a fair amoutn of work ensuring the wording in several places is right. It also opens up the pandora's box in that the Annex for license expressions is in need of an overall update. For these reasons, this seems like something better suited to be coupled with that effort.  That's my gut at this point.

5. Add profile for multiple SPDX files with short licensing/copyright info: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/502
This seems like a lighter version of what will be the licensing profile in 3.0. As such, maybe we should expend our energy on 3.0 and the profiles, see where that ends up. And then go back to this?

6. Specify which licenses are compatible with the "+" operator: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/689#issuecomment-1135966938
Admittedly, I have not read through this yet, but from the title alone it may even be a non-issue, so putting it at bottom of list


Thanks,
Jilayne

Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.