Date
1 - 4 of 4
Fedora License List Review
|
zwhite@...
SPDX Legal Team, On today's call, we did not have a quorum present for decisions regarding the addition of new licenses to the SPDX License List from the list of "Fedora Good Licenses". Since we have other items that are pending the completion of this review, we have decided to keep the review moving by completing the remaining licenses via email. We hope to establish a weekly cadence for the review of these licenses in order to make our way through the 100+ remaining licenses before the Linux Collaboration Summit starts on March 26. If we have agreement among 3 members with no dissenting opinions or outstanding questions, then the license will be marked "approved" on the master Tracking Sheet (link available at bottom of email). Listed below are the 12 licenses from the Fedora list that were marked for review this week. Please reply to this email string with your input regarding any or all of these 12 licenses. Feel free to mark up the table below, edit the live Tracking Sheet, or just describe your feedback in email. Your participation is greatly appreciated!
RESOURCES
Zak White Entente Software LLC 570 El Camino Real #150-103 Redwood City, CA 94065 Phone: (650) 489-6851 zwhite@... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
zwhite@...
Quick reminder to the group: please submit your feedback on the matter of adding the below-identified licenses to the SPDX License List. Your timely submissions will allow us to discuss outstanding issues at tomorrow's bi-weekly Legal Team call. Thanks! Zak White Entente Software LLC 570 El Camino Real #150-103 Redwood City, CA 94065 Phone: (650) 489-6851 zwhite@...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
J Lovejoy
Thanks for the reminder, Zac!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
yes, folks, please, please, please help out on this task!! it’s really quite easy! The inclination is to add any license on the Fedora “good” license list to the SPDX License List, so you only need to consider if there is some critical reason to not do so, the appropriate short identifier if adding (also inclination to use whatever Fedora uses, but need to make sure there is some consistency also with SPDX naming protocol), and whether the license needs any “templatizing” (most won’t). I have been working on adding my comments to as many licenses as possible and started to catalog a list of outstanding issues, and so forth. I hope to have that out to the list before our meeting tomorrow so that people can review and we can discuss. Cheers, Jilayne On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:49 AM, zwhite@... wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
J Lovejoy
Hi all, For purposes of the meeting, let’s discuss some of the Fedora licenses we had tagged to add, but have questions - 3 below A few items that we tagged as “needs further review” or I had a question about: - Abstyles - we queued that one. Let’s make a decision. Also need to consider if this license needs a template for matching purposes - Crossword License - we are going to add this, but I have a question as to whether it needs a template for matching purposes - Copyright Attribution Only - I’d agree we shouldn’t add this. there are so many variations of these one-liners, I'd agree it's probably better captured via the Lic-Ref function in the spec There are other licenses that we might was to get more info about from Fedora, I’ve started a list of those here: Licenses that we should communicate with Fedora about: The following licenses we decided not to add to the SPDX License List. I added a note that we might want to get further info from Fedora about usage and variations before making that final call. I highlighted the note section in green so we’d remember. - BeOpen Open Source License Agreement Version 1 - Bibtex License - Borceux license - BSD License (original) - need to check with Fedora if this is considered specific to UC Regents or if it could contain any copyright holder’s name, which will impact which SPDX License List short identifier it is equivalent to. - Crystal Stacker License - license on Fedora page does not match (exactly) that found in v1.5 download. also, there appears to be two different variations of a license in the download (I sent an email about this previously, need to find). Should ask Fedora about these variations … more to add to the ‘ask Fedora’ list, but perhaps we should just wait until we’ve gotten through the whole list? Jilayne On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:47 PM, zwhite@... wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|