Date   

Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

J Lovejoy
 

oh geez, sorry all - Steve already pointed you all to that discussion!  I missed that URL - my bad!

On Mar 9, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Steve Winslow <swinslow@...> wrote:

Hi Michael, David and Max,

Thanks for your emails. A couple of comments:

Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark: For items to be added to the SPDX License List, among other requirements there needs to be a corresponding "matching text" that represents the entry that actually goes on the list. You can see these in the texts that are used at https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html and https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html. Is there a corresponding text that is associated with Creative Commons' Public Domain Mark? From some brief searching I'm not coming across one. If there is one then I would encourage adding an issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues with a link to the text, so that it can be reviewed and considered.

Regarding a more general UNCOPYRIGHTABLE identifier, I would suggest reading the Legal Team's comments on this from April 2013 at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files

Best,
Steve


On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote:
michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]:
> Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders
> and markers.  Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure
> how to tag them.  "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate.  "NONE"
> does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the
> same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object.  It
> seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license
> it.

Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information:
>Actually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests:
> * Add a copyright and licensing header anyway
> * Use CC0-1.0 as a license to waive your copyright (I know, the concept
>  of public domain can become complicated depending on the legislation)
> The full FAQ item on this issue: https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable

As Creative Commons says, "CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world." https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ The CC0 is intended for the *release* of items to the public domain that would otherwise be copyrighted.

Years ago Creative Commons created a separate item, the "Public Domain Mark", to identify works that were *already* in the public domain: https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/

This discussion reveals an important omission: The SPDX license list needs to add the Creative Commons "public domain mark". Yes, from some points of view it's technically not a license, but when you're trying to figure out what rights the recipient has, it is *definitely* a license.... it's just a license (permission) granted directly through the application of law. The SDPX license currently includes the "Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication and Certification" https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html which combined the features of both, but that was retired years ago and split up into the CC0 and the public domain mark.

--- David A. Wheeler





--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation


Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

J Lovejoy
 

Hi all,

Going back to Michael’s original post as seems like we got on a tangent regarding CC public domain mark (which seems like an easier discussion).

I think we need to be clear on what we are talking about:  license short identifiers which correspond to an actual license or public domain text, e.g., Apache-2.0,  or data for use in SPDX specification fields related to licensing (e.g., 3.15 Declared License) which may use an SPDX license expression or NONE (no license info at all) or NOASSERTION. 

In the case of no license info you describe below, NONE would be appropriate.

In terms of definitively declaring something as UNCOPYRIGHTABLE  - I think that is a very dangerous proposition. While there may be some clear cases where copyright does not attach, only a judge can make that determination. To have an option to use in an SPDX document like this would invite incorrect use or people making legal determinations that could very well be incorrect.  I believe we may have discussed this topic in the past, but have not dug into the archives to find evidence.

I do think there is some similarity to repeated requests for a generic public domain tag - we wrote up a rationale for not having that so we’d remember. That rationale write-up is here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files_(DRAFT) (it’s not a draft, but I can’t seem to change the URL…)

I’m not entirely clear on the exact use case here, so please do let me know if I’ve missed something!

Thanks,
Jilayne

On Mar 9, 2020, at 3:45 AM, michael.kaelbling@... wrote:

How should I correctly tag uncopyrightable material?

The U.S. Copyright Office states in https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf that some materials are "uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship."  Examples they give include: names, titles, and blank forms.  Also uncopyrightable are "mere" lists of contents and simple sets of directions.

Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders and markers.  Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure how to tag them.  "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate.  "NONE" does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object.  It seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license it.

Can we add an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword or license to SPDX?  An UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword, like NONE, would not the name of a license file.  While an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE.txt license file could contain text like "this file is inherently uncopyrightable, but you may replace it with copyrightable content".

As a bonus, REUSE.software scans would then be free of false-positives about "missing" copyrights.
SPDX-FileCopyrightText: UNCOPYRIGHTABLE is very different from SPDX-FileCopyrightText: NONE


Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

Philippe Ombredanne
 

Dear David:

David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote:
So for example, https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results?work_title=WORK_NAME&author_title=AUTHOR_NAME&author_href=AUTHOR_URL&curator_title=INDIVIDUAL_NAME&curator_href=INDIVIDUAL_URL&lang=en_US&field1=continue
ends up being displayed as:
This work (WORK_NAME, by AUTHOR_NAME), identified by INDIVIDUAL_NAME, is free of known copyright restrictions.
While just retrieving https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results reports:
This work is free of known copyright restrictions.
It’s pretty obvious how this works. I suspect the Creative Commons folks would be happy to reveal the full template, they probably have just never been asked.
I think these are generated by this fine Python code [1]

[1] https://github.com/creativecommons/cc.license/blob/a134299fdb0e882b84a2c181afc5588e13ae32df/cc/license/formatters/classes.py#L324

--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne


Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

Steve Winslow
 

Thanks David, this is helpful. I've added relevant portions to a new issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/988 for discussion and review.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:07 AM Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...> wrote:

> Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark: For items to be added to the SPDX License List, among other requirements there needs to be a corresponding "matching text" that represents the entry that actually goes on the list. You can see these in the texts that are used at https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html and https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html. Is there a corresponding text that is associated with Creative Commons' Public Domain Mark? From some brief searching I'm not coming across one. If there is one then I would encourage adding an issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues with a link to the text, so that it can be reviewed and considered.

 

Re: the "Public Domain Mark”, to retrieve the “matching text” you start from here:

https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/

 

Unfortunately, what they’ve chosen to do is to “auto-fill” the matching text. So what happens is that you get the matching text by retrieving this URL with various fields filled in:

https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results

 

So for example, https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results?work_title=WORK_NAME&author_title=AUTHOR_NAME&author_href=AUTHOR_URL&curator_title=INDIVIDUAL_NAME&curator_href=INDIVIDUAL_URL&lang=en_US&field1=continue

ends up being displayed as:

This work (WORK_NAME, by AUTHOR_NAME), identified by INDIVIDUAL_NAME, is free of known copyright restrictions.

 

While just retrieving https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results reports:

This work is free of known copyright restrictions.

 

It’s pretty obvious how this works. I suspect the Creative Commons folks would be happy to reveal the full template, they probably have just never been asked.

 

 

From: Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 10:57 AM
To: Spdx-legal@...
Cc: Max Mehl <max.mehl@...>; michael.kaelbling@...; Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...>
Subject: Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

 

Hi Michael, David and Max,

 

Thanks for your emails. A couple of comments:

 

 

Regarding a more general UNCOPYRIGHTABLE identifier, I would suggest reading the Legal Team's comments on this from April 2013 at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote:

michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]:
> Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders
> and markers.  Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure
> how to tag them.  "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate.  "NONE"
> does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the
> same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object.  It
> seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license
> it.

Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information:
>Actually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests:
> * Add a copyright and licensing header anyway
> * Use CC0-1.0 as a license to waive your copyright (I know, the concept
>  of public domain can become complicated depending on the legislation)
> The full FAQ item on this issue: https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable

As Creative Commons says, "CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world." https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ The CC0 is intended for the *release* of items to the public domain that would otherwise be copyrighted.

Years ago Creative Commons created a separate item, the "Public Domain Mark", to identify works that were *already* in the public domain: https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/

This discussion reveals an important omission: The SPDX license list needs to add the Creative Commons "public domain mark". Yes, from some points of view it's technically not a license, but when you're trying to figure out what rights the recipient has, it is *definitely* a license.... it's just a license (permission) granted directly through the application of law. The SDPX license currently includes the "Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication and Certification" https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html which combined the features of both, but that was retired years ago and split up into the CC0 and the public domain mark.

--- David A. Wheeler



--

Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation



--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation


Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

David A. Wheeler
 

> Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark: For items to be added to the SPDX License List, among other requirements there needs to be a corresponding "matching text" that represents the entry that actually goes on the list. You can see these in the texts that are used at https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html and https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html. Is there a corresponding text that is associated with Creative Commons' Public Domain Mark? From some brief searching I'm not coming across one. If there is one then I would encourage adding an issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues with a link to the text, so that it can be reviewed and considered.

 

Re: the "Public Domain Mark”, to retrieve the “matching text” you start from here:

https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/

 

Unfortunately, what they’ve chosen to do is to “auto-fill” the matching text. So what happens is that you get the matching text by retrieving this URL with various fields filled in:

https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results

 

So for example, https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results?work_title=WORK_NAME&author_title=AUTHOR_NAME&author_href=AUTHOR_URL&curator_title=INDIVIDUAL_NAME&curator_href=INDIVIDUAL_URL&lang=en_US&field1=continue

ends up being displayed as:

This work (WORK_NAME, by AUTHOR_NAME), identified by INDIVIDUAL_NAME, is free of known copyright restrictions.

 

While just retrieving https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/results reports:

This work is free of known copyright restrictions.

 

It’s pretty obvious how this works. I suspect the Creative Commons folks would be happy to reveal the full template, they probably have just never been asked.

 

 

From: Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 10:57 AM
To: Spdx-legal@...
Cc: Max Mehl <max.mehl@...>; michael.kaelbling@...; Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...>
Subject: Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

 

Hi Michael, David and Max,

 

Thanks for your emails. A couple of comments:

 

 

Regarding a more general UNCOPYRIGHTABLE identifier, I would suggest reading the Legal Team's comments on this from April 2013 at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote:

michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]:
> Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders
> and markers.  Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure
> how to tag them.  "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate.  "NONE"
> does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the
> same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object.  It
> seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license
> it.

Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information:
>Actually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests:
> * Add a copyright and licensing header anyway
> * Use CC0-1.0 as a license to waive your copyright (I know, the concept
>  of public domain can become complicated depending on the legislation)
> The full FAQ item on this issue: https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable

As Creative Commons says, "CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world." https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ The CC0 is intended for the *release* of items to the public domain that would otherwise be copyrighted.

Years ago Creative Commons created a separate item, the "Public Domain Mark", to identify works that were *already* in the public domain: https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/

This discussion reveals an important omission: The SPDX license list needs to add the Creative Commons "public domain mark". Yes, from some points of view it's technically not a license, but when you're trying to figure out what rights the recipient has, it is *definitely* a license.... it's just a license (permission) granted directly through the application of law. The SDPX license currently includes the "Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication and Certification" https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html which combined the features of both, but that was retired years ago and split up into the CC0 and the public domain mark.

--- David A. Wheeler



--

Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation


Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

Steve Winslow
 

Hi Michael, David and Max,

Thanks for your emails. A couple of comments:

Regarding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark: For items to be added to the SPDX License List, among other requirements there needs to be a corresponding "matching text" that represents the entry that actually goes on the list. You can see these in the texts that are used at https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html and https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html. Is there a corresponding text that is associated with Creative Commons' Public Domain Mark? From some brief searching I'm not coming across one. If there is one then I would encourage adding an issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues with a link to the text, so that it can be reviewed and considered.

Regarding a more general UNCOPYRIGHTABLE identifier, I would suggest reading the Legal Team's comments on this from April 2013 at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files

Best,
Steve


On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@...> wrote:
michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]:
> Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders
> and markers.  Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure
> how to tag them.  "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate.  "NONE"
> does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the
> same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object.  It
> seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license
> it.

Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information:
>Actually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests:
> * Add a copyright and licensing header anyway
> * Use CC0-1.0 as a license to waive your copyright (I know, the concept
>  of public domain can become complicated depending on the legislation)
> The full FAQ item on this issue: https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable

As Creative Commons says, "CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world." https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ The CC0 is intended for the *release* of items to the public domain that would otherwise be copyrighted.

Years ago Creative Commons created a separate item, the "Public Domain Mark", to identify works that were *already* in the public domain: https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/

This discussion reveals an important omission: The SPDX license list needs to add the Creative Commons "public domain mark". Yes, from some points of view it's technically not a license, but when you're trying to figure out what rights the recipient has, it is *definitely* a license.... it's just a license (permission) granted directly through the application of law. The SDPX license currently includes the "Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication and Certification" https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html which combined the features of both, but that was retired years ago and split up into the CC0 and the public domain mark.

--- David A. Wheeler





--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation


Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

David A. Wheeler
 

michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]:
Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders
and markers.  Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure
how to tag them.  "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate.  "NONE"
does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the
same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object.  It
seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license
it.
Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact and information:
Actually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests:
* Add a copyright and licensing header anyway
* Use CC0-1.0 as a license to waive your copyright (I know, the concept
of public domain can become complicated depending on the legislation)
The full FAQ item on this issue: https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable
As Creative Commons says, "CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world." https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ The CC0 is intended for the *release* of items to the public domain that would otherwise be copyrighted.

Years ago Creative Commons created a separate item, the "Public Domain Mark", to identify works that were *already* in the public domain: https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/

This discussion reveals an important omission: The SPDX license list needs to add the Creative Commons "public domain mark". Yes, from some points of view it's technically not a license, but when you're trying to figure out what rights the recipient has, it is *definitely* a license.... it's just a license (permission) granted directly through the application of law. The SDPX license currently includes the "Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication and Certification" https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-PDDC.html which combined the features of both, but that was retired years ago and split up into the CC0 and the public domain mark.

--- David A. Wheeler


Re: Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

Max Mehl
 

Hi Michael,

~ michael.kaelbling@... [2020-03-09 10:45 +0100]:
Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders
and markers.  Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure
how to tag them.  "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate.  "NONE"
does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the
same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object.  It
seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license
it.
Actually, that's one of the two options REUSE suggests:
* Add a copyright and licensing header anyway
* Use CC0-1.0 as a license to waive your copyright (I know, the concept
of public domain can become complicated depending on the legislation)

The full FAQ item on this issue: https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable

Best,
Max

--
Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe
Contact and information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl | @mxmehl
Become a supporter of software freedom: https://fsfe.org/join


Tagging of UNCOPYRIGHTABLE material

michael.kaelbling@...
 

How should I correctly tag uncopyrightable material?

The U.S. Copyright Office states in https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf that some materials are "uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship."  Examples they give include: names, titles, and blank forms.  Also uncopyrightable are "mere" lists of contents and simple sets of directions.

Currently I have a project that includes empty files as placeholders and markers.  Because such files are uncopyrightable, I am not sure how to tag them.  "NONE" and "NOASSERTION" seem inappropriate.  "NONE" does not imply that none is possible, and "NOASSERTION" is not the same as an assertion of the uncopyrightablility of an object.  It seems inappropriate to claim an unenforceable copyright and license it.

Can we add an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword or license to SPDX?  An UNCOPYRIGHTABLE keyword, like NONE, would not the name of a license file.  While an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE.txt license file could contain text like "this file is inherently uncopyrightable, but you may replace it with copyrightable content".

As a bonus, REUSE.software scans would then be free of false-positives about "missing" copyrights.
SPDX-FileCopyrightText: UNCOPYRIGHTABLE is very different from SPDX-FileCopyrightText: NONE


Re: SPDX meeting Friday March 13th

Philippe Ombredanne
 

Jilayne:

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:53 PM J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:
There is an SPDX room available co-located and after the event for the LF Member
Summit in Lake Tahoe. The SPDX meeting will be Friday afternoon, the 13th - 1pm - 6pm

I was wondering:
- who else will be there from the legal team?
- assuming we can work out sufficient sound going for a call -
who would be inclined to join via phone?
I would have loved to join but my travel plans are already set and I
am leaving Friday. A bit more of an advance notice would have been
needed. Phone would be nice.
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

+1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@...
DejaCode - What's in your code?! - http://www.dejacode.com
AboutCode - Open source for open source - https://www.aboutcode.org
nexB Inc. - http://www.nexb.com


Re: SPDX meeting Friday March 13th

Alan Tse
 

I had not realized SPDX was hosting something after the summit so am slated to leave on Thursday evening. I could join via phone though for a portion of that time slot.

On 2/27/20, 3:53 PM, "Spdx-legal@... on behalf of J Lovejoy" <Spdx-legal@... on behalf of opensource@...> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Western Digital. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe.


(I know, I’m on a roll - last email from me today!)

There is an SPDX room available co-located and after the event for the LF Member Summit in Lake Tahoe. The SPDX meeting will be Friday afternoon, the 13th - 1pm - 6pm

I was wondering:
- who else will be there from the legal team?
- assuming we can work out sufficient sound going for a call - who would be inclined to join via phone?

Thanks,
Jilayne


Re: update to documentation, use of wiki

Alan Tse
 

Also, GitHub does have built in wiki functionality not to mention multiple ways to generate websites/documentation using the repo functionality. I don't think issues are the best way to capture meeting minutes, but using the existing GitHub functionality does allow for easy cross referencing between issues and other items.

On 2/27/20, 3:39 PM, "Spdx-legal@... on behalf of William Bartholomew" <Spdx-legal@... on behalf of iamwillbar@...> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Western Digital. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe.


While I am biased, GitHub issues are pretty useful and some of these
scenarios are pretty well handled with issues and it gives people one
place to look for content. For example, we could create an spdx-meetings
repository, create an issue to capture the notes from each meeting (you
can use markdown, embed images, links, etc.), use labels to categorize
as legal, tech, or general to enable people to filter. Since people can
comment on issues they can leave comments to "approve the minutes", ask
questions, or provide feedback.

Issues can be used for proposals but if the proposal is content heavy
and needs to iterate a lot then I find pull requests are better for this.

If we'd like to pursue these options I'd be happy to create the
repositories, template issues, and write up a bit of a user's guide for
people that are less familiar with GitHub.

William

On 2/27/20 12:53 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I made some updates to some of the documentation files in the Github repo today related to some conversation on the call. Would love to have some feedback. See: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pulls
> (981, 982, 983, 984)
>
> This led me to realize we still refer to the wiki as our working area (and it’s the only place - I think - we have the info about the bi-weekly calls, which is now outdated!) https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team
>
> While I have no appetite to shut down the wiki and there are some good resources there, what are thoughts about perhaps redefining how we use it? Off top of head:
> - for meeting minutes
> - recording old decisions (existing, but this could mean we could still opt to record stuff there in the future if it’s deemed the best place?)
> - proposals we are hashing out, but aren’t appropriate for a Github issue
>
> In the spirit of having only one place to update - I’m thinking we might move the call info to the Github readme and remove from the wiki page?? more likely to be seen there.
>
> Thoughts? ideas??
>
> Thanks,
> Jilayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


SPDX meeting Friday March 13th

J Lovejoy
 

(I know, I’m on a roll - last email from me today!)

There is an SPDX room available co-located and after the event for the LF Member Summit in Lake Tahoe. The SPDX meeting will be Friday afternoon, the 13th - 1pm - 6pm

I was wondering:
- who else will be there from the legal team?
- assuming we can work out sufficient sound going for a call - who would be inclined to join via phone?

Thanks,
Jilayne


license inclusion principles

J Lovejoy
 

Hi all,

As many of your are aware, we have discussed revising the license inclusion principles over the last part of 2019 - in various calls and distilled in this issue: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/925

Thanks to Steve’s help, I’ve finally made a PR with another round of edits in accordance with many of the points raised. Please see https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/985
(it’s a little messy, so it might be easier to use the “view file” option - click on the file, then the 3 dots on the upper left hand corner of the diff window and you’ll see that option)

And comment there on here on the mailing list.

Thanks!

Jilayne


Re: update to documentation, use of wiki

William Bartholomew
 

While I am biased, GitHub issues are pretty useful and some of these scenarios are pretty well handled with issues and it gives people one place to look for content. For example, we could create an spdx-meetings repository, create an issue to capture the notes from each meeting (you can use markdown, embed images, links, etc.), use labels to categorize as legal, tech, or general to enable people to filter. Since people can comment on issues they can leave comments to "approve the minutes", ask questions, or provide feedback.

Issues can be used for proposals but if the proposal is content heavy and needs to iterate a lot then I find pull requests are better for this.

If we'd like to pursue these options I'd be happy to create the repositories, template issues, and write up a bit of a user's guide for people that are less familiar with GitHub.

William

On 2/27/20 12:53 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
Hi folks,

I made some updates to some of the documentation files in the Github repo today related to some conversation on the call. Would love to have some feedback. See: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pulls
(981, 982, 983, 984)

This led me to realize we still refer to the wiki as our working area (and it’s the only place - I think - we have the info about the bi-weekly calls, which is now outdated!) https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team

While I have no appetite to shut down the wiki and there are some good resources there, what are thoughts about perhaps redefining how we use it? Off top of head:
- for meeting minutes
- recording old decisions (existing, but this could mean we could still opt to record stuff there in the future if it’s deemed the best place?)
- proposals we are hashing out, but aren’t appropriate for a Github issue

In the spirit of having only one place to update - I’m thinking we might move the call info to the Github readme and remove from the wiki page?? more likely to be seen there.

Thoughts? ideas??

Thanks,
Jilayne






update to documentation, use of wiki

J Lovejoy
 

Hi folks,

I made some updates to some of the documentation files in the Github repo today related to some conversation on the call. Would love to have some feedback. See: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pulls
(981, 982, 983, 984)

This led me to realize we still refer to the wiki as our working area (and it’s the only place - I think - we have the info about the bi-weekly calls, which is now outdated!) https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team

While I have no appetite to shut down the wiki and there are some good resources there, what are thoughts about perhaps redefining how we use it? Off top of head:
- for meeting minutes
- recording old decisions (existing, but this could mean we could still opt to record stuff there in the future if it’s deemed the best place?)
- proposals we are hashing out, but aren’t appropriate for a Github issue

In the spirit of having only one place to update - I’m thinking we might move the call info to the Github readme and remove from the wiki page?? more likely to be seen there.

Thoughts? ideas??

Thanks,
Jilayne


Meeting today, Feb. 27

Steve Winslow
 

Hello all, the next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be today, Thursday, Feb. 27 at 9AM PT / noon ET.

= = = = =
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/611416785

Meeting ID: 611 416 785

One tap mobile
+16465588656,,611416785# US (New York)
+16699006833,,611416785# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
        877 369 0926 US Toll-free
        855 880 1246 US Toll-free
        +1 647 558 0588 Canada
        855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 611 416 785
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aceZFvRyln

--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation


Re: Invitation: SPDX joint tech/legal team call @ Tue Feb 25, 2020 1pm - 2pm (EST) (spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org)

Carmen Bianca Bakker
 

Hi Steve,

I think the description of the event contains an error: 13:00 EST ought
to be 18:00 in UTC, not 17:00. Sending this to the list in case anybody
was going by what the description says instead of doing the conversion
manually.

Kindly,
Carmen

Je mar, 2020-02-18 je 20:21 +0000, Steve Winslow skribis:

SPDX joint tech/legal team call
Loko: https://zoom.us/j/663426859
Komencotempo: mardo 18:00
Fintempo: mardo 19:00

Hello SPDX legal team list,<br><br>Next week's tech team meeting, on February 25 at 1700 UTC / 1PM ET / 10AM PT, will be a joint legal/tech team discussion. Dial-in details are below.<br><br>The primary topic will be a continuation of the decision last year to implement and permit "license list namespaces," as described in <a href="https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/113" id="ow3137" __is_owner="true">https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/113</a> and the subsequent comments. There will be a draft appendix to describe this for version 2.2 of the spec, which will be submitted as a PR before the call so that it can be discussed by the joint group.<br><br>Other relevant topics of interest to both teams may be discussed during the call as well. We hope you can join if you are available.<br><br>Best,<br>Steve<br><br><br>= = = = =<br><br><span><a href="https://zoom.us/j/663426859">https://zoom.us/j/663426859</a> <br><br>Meeting ID: 663 426 859 <br><br>Tuesdays at 17:00 UTC (and best guess for local time - 10:00AM PDT, 11:00 MDT, 12:00PM CDT, 1:00PM EDT, 18:00 WAT, 19:00 CEST). <br><br>Australia +61 2 8015 2088<br>Canada +1 647 558 0588 <br>Germany +49 30 3080 6188<br>Japan +81 3 4578 1488 <br>US Toll-free 877 369 0926 <br><br>Find your local number: <a href="https://zoom.us/u/ac9KKJWzJT">https://zoom.us/u/ac9KKJWzJT</a></span>

-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-
Please do not edit this section of the description.

View your event at https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHU0dWZmdmR0Z2hhNmQwYzFsamFsNWtjM2Igc3BkeC1sZWdhbEBsaXN0cy5zcGR4Lm9yZw&tok=Mjgjc3dpbnNsb3dAbGludXhmb3VuZGF0aW9uLm9yZ2IzYzg4Mzg2Y2M3NmI5YTY2NGNhNjA3MjBlNGU0OWI4MDEzOTYzYWU&ctz=America%2FNew_York&hl=en&es=1.
-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-


Invitation: SPDX joint tech/legal team call @ Tue Feb 25, 2020 1pm - 2pm (EST) (spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org)

Steve Winslow
 

You have been invited to the following event.

SPDX joint tech/legal team call

When
Tue Feb 25, 2020 1pm – 2pm Eastern Time - New York
Where
https://zoom.us/j/663426859 (map)
Calendar
spdx-legal@...
Who
swinslow@... - organizer
spdx-legal@...
Hello SPDX legal team list,

Next week's tech team meeting, on February 25 at 1700 UTC / 1PM ET / 10AM PT, will be a joint legal/tech team discussion. Dial-in details are below.

The primary topic will be a continuation of the decision last year to implement and permit "license list namespaces," as described in https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/113 and the subsequent comments. There will be a draft appendix to describe this for version 2.2 of the spec, which will be submitted as a PR before the call so that it can be discussed by the joint group.

Other relevant topics of interest to both teams may be discussed during the call as well. We hope you can join if you are available.

Best,
Steve


= = = = =

https://zoom.us/j/663426859

Meeting ID: 663 426 859

Tuesdays at 17:00 UTC (and best guess for local time - 10:00AM PDT, 11:00 MDT, 12:00PM CDT, 1:00PM EDT, 18:00 WAT, 19:00 CEST).

Australia +61 2 8015 2088
Canada +1 647 558 0588
Germany +49 30 3080 6188
Japan +81 3 4578 1488
US Toll-free 877 369 0926

Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac9KKJWzJT

Going (spdx-legal@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account spdx-legal@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organizer and be added to the guest list, or invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or to modify your RSVP. Learn More.


Meeting today, Feb. 13

Steve Winslow
 

Hello all, the next SPDX legal team meeting will be today, Thursday, Feb. 13 at 9AM PT / noon ET.

= = = = =
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/611416785

Meeting ID: 611 416 785

One tap mobile
+16465588656,,611416785# US (New York)
+16699006833,,611416785# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
        877 369 0926 US Toll-free
        855 880 1246 US Toll-free
        +1 647 558 0588 Canada
        855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 611 416 785
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aceZFvRyln


--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation

541 - 560 of 3280