Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
|
Philip Odence
Polite request:
Could we shift this discussion off of the General Meeting list and onto the Legal Team list only? TThis is GREAT discussion for the legal team.
This is not a big problem, but I want to respect the norms we established when we formed the Legal, Business and Tech teams. Part of splitting up the lists was to keep the traffic on the General Meeting list light so as not to burden folks who are only
looking to monitor goings across the teams and at a high level. Real work (and this is real work) is supposed to be done on the team lists.
So, if anyone responds to this (or other emails in the thread) please remove spdx@... from the CC.
Note: anyone not on the legal list and wanting to follow the discussion can sign up at http://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
Thanks,
Phil
From: Tom Incorvia <tom.incorvia@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:14:32 -0500 To: Bob Gobeille <bob.gobeille@...>, "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@...> Cc: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@...>, <spdx@...> Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX As long as the licenses are
- Carefully named and vetted for exact license text
- Somewhat broadly applicable (“somewhat broadly” is fuzzy, but we do want the list to grow starting with very common and moving to less common – it is a way to get more value with our limited bandwidth to vet the licenses)
Then more is better.
SPDX is looking for volunteers to submit additional licenses that meet the above criteria.
To nominate a license, provide this info: http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added.
Legal team: I can help with the reviews of proposed licenses, although I am not available until the end of July.
Tom
Tom Incorvia Direct: (512) 340-1336
-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Bob Gobeille Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:50 PM To: Bradley M. Kuhn Cc: SPDX-legal; spdx@... Subject: Re: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
On Jun 28, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> But, note that exceptions are all over the place, in things like > Classpath, autoconf, and plenty of other places. I wonder: has anyone > taken a Fossology (the best scanning tool available as Free Software) > run of Debian distribution and just made sure every license it finds > has a moniker in SPDX? If not, why not? Seems like a necessary first > step for SPDX to have any chance of being complete.
FWIW, one of our FOSSology contributors (thank you Camille) put together a spreadsheet (HarmonisationLicenseIDs.ods) highlighting the differences between the fossology license list and the SPDX license list:
http://www.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki/MatchSPDXLicenceIDs
We plan on using this to update fossology with the SPDX license short names and insure we have license signatures for all the SPDX licenses.
Bob Gobeille _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
This message has been scanned by MailController - portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk This message has been scanned by MailController. _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx |
|
|