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

swinslow@...

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

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

--

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 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.
-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-