agenda for today's call
For today’s call, please refer to the agenda and relevant links below.
Jilayne & Paul
SPDX Legal Team co-leads
1) Revised schedule for 2.0 update
2) License Matching Guidelines - do these licenses need templates?
3) MPL-2.0 - how do we deal with the two variations in light of the new license expression syntax?
4) Zimbra License issue:
Zimbra 1.3 is on SPDX list - http://spdx.org/licenses/Zimbra-1.3
This license uses “VMWare” throughout and states in the beginning:
"VMVMware, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 3401 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 ("VMware”)”
and at the end:
"All disputes arising out of this Agreement involving VMware or any of its subsidiaries shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal or state courts of northern California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California.”
The SPDX License List also lists for another url: http://www.zimbra.com/license/zimbra-public-license-1-3.html
However, this (now) simply redirects to version 1.4 link: http://www.zimbra.com/legal/zimbra-public-license-1-4
A merge-and-compare of version 1.3 and version 1.4 at this link, shows that it is the same license except:
- “VMWare” is replace with “Zimbra” throughout;
- VMWare is a Texas Corporation, as stated in the beginning of the license; and
- at the end of the license, it states instead: "Zimbra 1.4 (not on SPDX list) - Zimbra, Texas Corporation, and "All disputes arising out of this Agreement involving Zimbra or any of its parents or subsidiaries shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal or state courts of Northern Texas, with venue lying in Dallas County, Texas."
What to do????
5) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master
Which has “...FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED.” in the disclaimer, where the usual language omits “AND NON-INFRINGEMENT”
SPDX Legal Team co-lead