Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX)
RUFFIN MICHEL
So Bradley, what is your suggestion for me to try to standardize these FOSS clauses. What organization? I have tried SPDX, I have been advised to go to FSFE legal network. I have join the FSFE legal network and I tried to get a reaction without success except "that's interesting". Any suggestion of organization that would have a look?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
It took us a lot of manpower to define FOSs clause which are widely accepted and tremendous effort to negotiate them with various suppliers before reaching this state. And if not standardize we can expect again more efforts That's important because we are trying to standardize as much as we can of our FOSS governance process (for instance having an "open source" database describing iPR issues so the effort done by each company today will be shared and copyright owners can have their own word for correcting information interpretation. I think this will be the benefit of everybody: copyright owners, open source communities, proprietary software vendors, FOSS distributor companies. Michel Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France
-----Message d'origine-----
De : spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] De la part de Bradley M. Kuhn Envoyé : jeudi 14 juin 2012 16:39 À : spdx@... Cc : spdx-tech@... Objet : Re: Clarification regarding "FSF legal network" (was Re: Import and export function of SPDX) RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) wrote today: I know that the discussion on this subject should be in FTFE mailingActually, I caution against being too quick to move discussion to ftf-legal mailing list, even if a topic seems off-topic for similar, public lists. ftf-legal is an invite-only mailing list, and thus it's probably not a good choice for discussion of topics where the Free Software community can help, since most of the Free Software community can't access ftf-legal. The list organizers said publicly at LinuxCon Europe 2011 that the criteria for subscription to ftf-legal are secret, so no one outside of existing list members actually know what they need to do to qualify for participation. After my three-year-long Kafkaesque experience of attempting to subscribe to ftf-legal, I eventually just gave up. Thus, I'd hate for (even tangentially) relevant discussions to SPDX to fall into the black hole of private discussion on ftf-legal. As most subscribers to *this* list know, I've been occasionally critical of SPDX for various reasons, but I have *no* criticisms about the inclusiveness and openness of SPDX's process, which are top-notch. Indeed, Martin invited me to the SPDX list when he chartered it as "FOSS Bazaar Package Facts". I've lurked on the list since its inception, and I've always been welcomed to participate (sometimes even by pleading private phone calls begging me to get more involved in SPDX :). In April 2012 at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit legal track that I chaired, I explained the reasons that I don't regularly participate in SPDX. For those who weren't present for that event, the two primary reasons why I don't actively participate in SPDX are: (a) SPDX currently has no plans nor mechanism to address the key and most common FLOSS license compliance problem -- namely, inadequate and/or missing "scripts to control compilation and installation of the executable" for GPL'd and/or LGPL'd software. Given my limited time and wide range of duties, I need to focus any time spent on new compliance-assistance projects on solutions that will solve that primary compliance problem before focusing on the (valuable but minor) ones that SPDX seeks to address. (And many of you know, I've given my endorsement to the Yocto project, as I think it's a good tool to help address the key issue of FLOSS compliance. I also encouraged the Yocto project to work more directly with SPDX, which I understand is now happening.) (b) I strongly object to the fact that most of the software being written by SPDX committee participants utilizing the SPDX format is proprietary software. I find this not only offensive but also ironic (i.e., developing and marketing *proprietary* software to help people better utilize *Free* Software). I should have posted these concerns sooner to this mailing list, but I hadn't thought to do so since I'd already explained the concerns privately to so many of you before. -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
|
|