1. Topics
  2. HPND & NTP

HPND & NTP

J Lovejoy
 

Hi All,

During the SPDX bake-off it came up that NTP https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html can match to HPND https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html due to the template nature of HPND.  The folks in the bakeoff wanted to know if we ought to deprecate one of these licenses in favor of using the other or how a tool should reconcile which license to “pick” where both could be a valid answer.  Talking about this here in Berlin and looking at the licenses, can we please discuss the following items on the next legal call:

1) Both of these licenses are OSI-approved, which is why they are both on the SPDX License List. Given that we endeavor to have all OSI-approved licenses on the SPDX License List (even if they are old or have been voluntarily deprecated by the author, as has HPND), so I don’t view deprecation as an option.  All agree?

2) As to HPND, we did not have markup for this license, but it needs it - Sam has added markup to the XML template and Brad has reviewed. It is flagged for review by the legal team: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/89/files  - can we get another set of eyes on this, both from the legal perspective and to check the markup? 

3) OSI has comments as to how to “match” this license at the bottom of their page - https://opensource.org/licenses/HPNDl - should we add this to the Notes field, as is suggested in the XML file (do we really need it, especially if we have the markup and since the line about white space and capitalization merely repeats a couple of our matching guidelines?)

4) I would recommend adding a comment in the Notes field for each license along the lines of the following:
- for NTP: "This license is the same as HPND, when taking into consideration the templatizing options given in that license.  This is included as a separate license on the SPDX License List because it is separately approved by the OSI.”

- HPND: “Due to the templatization options of this license, it can be the same text as NTP license. This is included as a separate license on the SPDX License List because it is separately approved by the OSI.”

Please edit as needed.  Perhaps we can then ask the OSI to add similar language on their pages as well, so it is all consistent.


Thanks,
Jilayne


SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...
David A. Wheeler
 

Jilayne’s recommendation makes sense to me…!

 

--- David A. Wheeler

 

 

From: spdx-tech-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-tech-bounces@...] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 4:21 AM
To: SPDX-legal
Cc: spdx-tech@...
Subject: HPND & NTP

 

Hi All,

 

During the SPDX bake-off it came up that NTP https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html can match to HPND https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html due to the template nature of HPND.  The folks in the bakeoff wanted to know if we ought to deprecate one of these licenses in favor of using the other or how a tool should reconcile which license to “pick” where both could be a valid answer.  Talking about this here in Berlin and looking at the licenses, can we please discuss the following items on the next legal call:

 

1) Both of these licenses are OSI-approved, which is why they are both on the SPDX License List. Given that we endeavor to have all OSI-approved licenses on the SPDX License List (even if they are old or have been voluntarily deprecated by the author, as has HPND), so I don’t view deprecation as an option.  All agree?

 

2) As to HPND, we did not have markup for this license, but it needs it - Sam has added markup to the XML template and Brad has reviewed. It is flagged for review by the legal team: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/89/files  - can we get another set of eyes on this, both from the legal perspective and to check the markup? 

 

3) OSI has comments as to how to “match” this license at the bottom of their page - https://opensource.org/licenses/HPNDl - should we add this to the Notes field, as is suggested in the XML file (do we really need it, especially if we have the markup and since the line about white space and capitalization merely repeats a couple of our matching guidelines?)

 

4) I would recommend adding a comment in the Notes field for each license along the lines of the following:

- for NTP: "This license is the same as HPND, when taking into consideration the templatizing options given in that license.  This is included as a separate license on the SPDX License List because it is separately approved by the OSI.”

 

- HPND: “Due to the templatization options of this license, it can be the same text as NTP license. This is included as a separate license on the SPDX License List because it is separately approved by the OSI.”

 

Please edit as needed.  Perhaps we can then ask the OSI to add similar language on their pages as well, so it is all consistent.

 

 

Thanks,

Jilayne

 

 

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...

 
Philippe Ombredanne
 

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:20 AM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:
Hi All,

During the SPDX bake-off it came up that NTP
https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html can match to HPND
https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html due to the template nature of HPND. The
folks in the bakeoff wanted to know if we ought to deprecate one of these
licenses in favor of using the other or how a tool should reconcile which
license to “pick” where both could be a valid answer. Talking about this
here in Berlin and looking at the licenses, can we please discuss the
following items on the next legal call:

1) Both of these licenses are OSI-approved, which is why they are both on
the SPDX License List. Given that we endeavor to have all OSI-approved
licenses on the SPDX License List (even if they are old or have been
voluntarily deprecated by the author, as has HPND), so I don’t view
deprecation as an option. All agree?

2) As to HPND, we did not have markup for this license, but it needs it -
Sam has added markup to the XML template and Brad has reviewed. It is
flagged for review by the legal team:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/89/files - can we get another
set of eyes on this, both from the legal perspective and to check the
markup?

3) OSI has comments as to how to “match” this license at the bottom of their
page - https://opensource.org/licenses/HPNDl - should we add this to the
Notes field, as is suggested in the XML file (do we really need it,
especially if we have the markup and since the line about white space and
capitalization merely repeats a couple of our matching guidelines?)

4) I would recommend adding a comment in the Notes field for each license
along the lines of the following:
- for NTP: "This license is the same as HPND, when taking into consideration
the templatizing options given in that license. This is included as a
separate license on the SPDX License List because it is separately approved
by the OSI.”

- HPND: “Due to the templatization options of this license, it can be the
same text as NTP license. This is included as a separate license on the SPDX
License List because it is separately approved by the OSI.”

Please edit as needed. Perhaps we can then ask the OSI to add similar
language on their pages as well, so it is all consistent.
This all make sense. The only point is that the licenses are not the
same, but are similar: the HPND has an additional warranty disclaimer.
So I am not sure why this would ever be an issue matching-wise and
this may not warrant a note in the license.
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
Alexios Zavras
 

Phil,

As it was explained in the bake-off: the disclaimer (second paragraph in the license text shown in https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html) is all enclosed in square brackets ("[...]"), and therefore was considered optional. The same happens with some individual words ("and", "that", etc.) of the first paragraph.

Therefore some text matching only the first paragraph can definitely match the complete license. That was the case found.

Yes, once this is correctly rendered in a template, this would be much more obvious.


-- zvr –

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
Sent: Friday, 7 October, 2016 17:17
To: J Lovejoy <opensource@...>
Cc: spdx-tech@...; SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@...>
Subject: Re: HPND & NTP

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:20 AM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:
Hi All,

During the SPDX bake-off it came up that NTP
https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html can match to HPND
https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html due to the template nature of
HPND. The folks in the bakeoff wanted to know if we ought to
deprecate one of these licenses in favor of using the other or how a
tool should reconcile which license to “pick” where both could be a
valid answer. Talking about this here in Berlin and looking at the
licenses, can we please discuss the following items on the next legal call:

1) Both of these licenses are OSI-approved, which is why they are both
on the SPDX License List. Given that we endeavor to have all
OSI-approved licenses on the SPDX License List (even if they are old
or have been voluntarily deprecated by the author, as has HPND), so I
don’t view deprecation as an option. All agree?

2) As to HPND, we did not have markup for this license, but it needs
it - Sam has added markup to the XML template and Brad has reviewed.
It is flagged for review by the legal team:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/89/files - can we get
another set of eyes on this, both from the legal perspective and to
check the markup?

3) OSI has comments as to how to “match” this license at the bottom of
their page - https://opensource.org/licenses/HPNDl - should we add
this to the Notes field, as is suggested in the XML file (do we really
need it, especially if we have the markup and since the line about
white space and capitalization merely repeats a couple of our matching
guidelines?)

4) I would recommend adding a comment in the Notes field for each
license along the lines of the following:
- for NTP: "This license is the same as HPND, when taking into
consideration the templatizing options given in that license. This is
included as a separate license on the SPDX License List because it is
separately approved by the OSI.”

- HPND: “Due to the templatization options of this license, it can be
the same text as NTP license. This is included as a separate license
on the SPDX License List because it is separately approved by the OSI.”

Please edit as needed. Perhaps we can then ask the OSI to add similar
language on their pages as well, so it is all consistent.
This all make sense. The only point is that the licenses are not the same, but are similar: the HPND has an additional warranty disclaimer.
So I am not sure why this would ever be an issue matching-wise and this may not warrant a note in the license.
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
1 - 4 of 4