Date   

Re: SPDX Web Site Linkes Appear to be broken

Martin Michlmayr
 

This was caused by a Drupal upgrade I did earlier today. The issue
has not been fixed yet (<http://drupal.org/node/1019788>) so I
downgraded to the previous version.

* Tom Incorvia <tom.incorvia@...> [2011-01-09 16:07]:

Hi SPDX Team,

Most of the links on the SPDSX site are not working – I was trying to get to the license list.


Tom

[cid:image001.jpg@...]

Tom Incorvia
tom.incorvia@...<mailto:tom.incorvia@...>
Direct: (512) 340-1336
Mobile: (408) 499 6850



This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController<http://www.MailController.altohiway.com/>.


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
--
Martin Michlmayr
Open Source Program Office, Hewlett-Packard


SPDX Web Site Linkes Appear to be broken

Tom Incorvia
 

Hi SPDX Team,

 

Most of the links on the SPDSX site are not working – I was trying to get to the license list. 

 

 

Tom

 

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850



This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController.


Minutes from Business Call

Kim Weins
 

Hi All

Minutes are now available.

http://www.spdx.org/wiki/business-team-meeting-agendaminutes-20110106

We spent most of the call talking about the Beta program.  We are targeting Feb 3rd to have an introductory call with all of the potential beta sites (5 to date) to go over details of the program, what we are asking them to do, what we will be providing them, etc.

Our next business team call is in 2 weeks — Jan 20th

Kim


Next SPDX General Meeting

Philip Odence
 

To avoid any confusion, I wanted to make clear that the next SPDX General Meeting is next Thursday, January 13. There would have been a meeting last week, but we cancelled it due to the holidays; Jan 13 follows that date by two weeks.

I'll send out a reminder, agenda and dial-in info a few days before.

Best,
Phil


L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502


Reminder: SPDX Business (Rollout) Call in 15 minutes

Kim Weins
 

------ Original Appointment

From: kim.weins@...

When: 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM December 9, 2010
Subject: SPDX Business (Rollout) Call 11ET/8PT
Location: See dial in below

US 866-740-1260
Int'l http://www.readytalk.com/support/international-numbers.php

ID 2404502

Web Meeting
Www.readytalk.com
ID 2404502

Agenda
We will be covering several areas on the rollout plan.

1. Beta process
2. User Content - what is needed
3. Evangelism and outreachOccurs every 2 week(s) on Thursday effective Thu
12/9/10

------ End Of Original Appointment


trying it out for size

Federico Lucifredi
 

Hello SPDX,
I have been lurking in the background for a while now; I maintain
man(1) and I keep a DOAP file on the project site, I thought I would
take a crack at SPDX:

http://primates.ximian.com/~flucifredi/man/SPDX.rdf

I first drafted this in the fall, so the spec may have drifted from
there, but I would be interested in critique/comments. Let's have it.

Best -F
--
_________________________________________
-- "'Problem' is a bleak word for challenge" - Richard Fish
(Federico L. Lucifredi) - flucifredi@... - GnuPG 0x4A73884C


Re: License List 1.4 posted on SPDX site

Tom Incorvia
 

Hi Jilayne,

 

Thanks for getting the next rev of the license list out!

 

Regarding the BSD licenses: I did some of the original work on the BSD licenses.  Below is the post from June 2010.  Fine if we rethink, but FYI below is the logic that the “early” team used to come up with the long names. 

 

The key issue that we tried to address was that the BSD licenses are inconsistently referred to with adjectives including “Original”, “New”, “Old”, “Modified”, “Simplified” and “Free”. 

 

These adjectives are also often combined inconsistently or outright incorrectly causing additional confusion.  We agreed on the # clauses as being definitive for the short names.  The current long names that were chosen were a compromise to have the names be as distinct as possible while retaining as much of the naming “lineage” as possible.

 

The June emails on this topic is below.

 

Tom

===============================

From: Tom Incorvia
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:40 AM
To: package-facts@...
Subject: BSD Short and Long Name Recommendations

 

One of my tasks from the last call was to propose BSD license long and short names.

 

Here are the names and logic.  These have been integrated into Kate’s list.

 

BSD License Naming:

 

Lots of confusion has resulted from the BSD licenses being named with various adjectives including Original, New, Old, Modified, Simplified and Free.  These adjectives are also combined, often, and incorrectly, causing additional confusion. 

 

Suffixing with the number of clauses ,however, is quite consistent, so I propose that we do that for the short names as specified below. 

 

-          BSD-4-Clause

-          BSD-3-Clause

-          BSD-2-Clause

 

Regarding the long names, to limit the confusion we include accepted, non-overlapping adjectives for each.  The long names below reflect the most consistent use of the adjectives historically used to describe the BSD.  The only exception is that “New and Simplified” is NOT used in the long name.  This combination, although somewhat common, consistently obscures whether the license is the “New” (3-clause) or  “Simplified FreeBSD” (2-Clause).  Best to avoid this phrase.

 

Proposed long names are below:

 

-          BSD 4-Clause “Original” or “Old” License

-          BSD 3-Clause “New” or  “Revised” License

-          BSD 2-Clause “Simplified” or “FreeBSD” License

 

Tom

 

===============================

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850

From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 5:23 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: License List 1.4 posted on SPDX site

 

http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list

 

Items of note:

Older versions of various licenses have been added.

Zlib and libpng licenses are both included.

 

Only remaining issue that I don’t think we addressed was the naming of the BSD licenses.  Currently the long title includes the various common names, e.g. “BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License”

This is certainly makes it most identifiable and I didn’t have any better idea of how to handle the various ways these licenses are referred to, so I left as-is.

 

Happy Holidays!

 

Jilayne Lovejoy  |  Corporate Counsel

jlovejoy@...

 

720 240 4545  |  phone

720 240 4556  |  fax

1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free

www.openlogic.com

 

OpenLogic, Inc.

Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021

 

 

Click here to report this email as spam.

This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController.


License List 1.4 posted on SPDX site

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list

 

Items of note:

Older versions of various licenses have been added.

Zlib and libpng licenses are both included.

 

Only remaining issue that I don’t think we addressed was the naming of the BSD licenses.  Currently the long title includes the various common names, e.g. “BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License”

This is certainly makes it most identifiable and I didn’t have any better idea of how to handle the various ways these licenses are referred to, so I left as-is.

 

Happy Holidays!

 

Jilayne Lovejoy  |  Corporate Counsel

jlovejoy@...

 

720 240 4545  |  phone

720 240 4556  |  fax

1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free

www.openlogic.com

 

OpenLogic, Inc.

Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021

 


Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Tom "spot" Callaway
 

On 12/22/2010 07:37 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, which
is basically the zlib license template (no specific copyright) and then
the specific libpng license, since it does have some other text
differences. In which case, we might simply call it the "zlib" license
instead of the OSI's "zlib/libpng" license, which is a bit confusing.

Thoughts?
For SPDX, I suppose it makes sense to take the templated zlib and call
it "zlib", and call the libpng variant "libpng", even though I don't
think Fedora will ever make that distinction.

~tom

==
Fedora Project


My screw up on SPDX biz call this AM

Kim Weins
 


I told everyone we were planning to have it, and then forgot myself.  Holiday brain I guess.

We’ll reconvene post-holidays.

Kim

On Thu 12/23/10 9:09 AM, "Philip Odence" <podence@...> wrote:





L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502
podence@...
http://www.blackducksoftware.com
http://twitter.com/podence
http://www.linkedin.com/in/podence
http://www.networkworld.com/community/odence (my blog)




Kim Weins | Senior Vice President, Marketing
kim.weins@...
Follow me on Twitter @KimAtOpenLogic

650 279 0410 | cell
www.openlogic.com
Follow OpenLogic on Twitter @OpenLogic

OpenLogic, Inc.
Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado





Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, which
is basically the zlib license template (no specific copyright) and then
the specific libpng license, since it does have some other text
differences. In which case, we might simply call it the "zlib" license
instead of the OSI's "zlib/libpng" license, which is a bit confusing.

Thoughts?

I'd like to get the latest version of the license list uploaded
tomorrow, if possible, pending this issue :)

Jilayne

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:27 PM
To: Soeren_Rabenstein@...
Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; spdx@...
Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

On 12/21/2010 09:14 PM, Soeren_Rabenstein@... wrote:
This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call:
How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only
difference of which is the Copyright notice?
The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I
understand this right, we are going to define the reference license
text
of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is
this right?
Sure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more
significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally
change the license's meaning, but it is technically different text, even
if templated.

~tom

==
Fedora Project


Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Tom "spot" Callaway
 

On 12/21/2010 09:14 PM, Soeren_Rabenstein@... wrote:
This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call:
How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only
difference of which is the Copyright notice?
The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I
understand this right, we are going to define the reference license text
of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is
this right?
Sure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more
significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally
change the license's meaning, but it is technically different text, even
if templated.

~tom

==
Fedora Project


Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Soeren_Rabenstein@...
 

This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call:
How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only
difference of which is the Copyright notice?
The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I
understand this right, we are going to define the reference license text
of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is
this right?

Cheers
Soeren

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Tom Callaway
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:20 AM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: spdx@...
Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

On 12/21/2010 06:43 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using
their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two
package-specific licenses on our initial list?
Yes, but I think the general trend for the SPDX initiative has been
that
any difference in wording (with the possible exception of copyright
holder identifiers), even if it has no effect on the rights or
restrictions of the license, should be a separate and distinct license
for tracking purposes.

I happen to think that approach spirals off into absurdity, but that's
just my opinion. :)

~tom

==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
=====================================================================================================================================
This email and any attachments to it contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
is addressed.If you are not the intended recipient or receive it accidentally, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete
the message and any attachments from your computer system, and destroy all hard copies. If any, please be advised that any unauthorized
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is illegal and prohibited. Furthermore, any views
or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of ASUSTeK. Thank you for your cooperation.
=====================================================================================================================================


Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Tom "spot" Callaway
 

On 12/21/2010 06:43 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using
their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two
package-specific licenses on our initial list?
Yes, but I think the general trend for the SPDX initiative has been that
any difference in wording (with the possible exception of copyright
holder identifiers), even if it has no effect on the rights or
restrictions of the license, should be a separate and distinct license
for tracking purposes.

I happen to think that approach spirals off into absurdity, but that's
just my opinion. :)

~tom

==
Fedora Project


Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using
their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two
package-specific licenses on our initial list?

Jilayne

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:06 AM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: spdx@...; Martin Michlmayr; jeff@...
Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

On 12/20/2010 10:26 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same,
with the exception of a longer explanation for clause 1 in the zlib
license and a lengthier disclaimer statement in the libpng license.
Also, the libpng license includes the applicable attribution notices
for the various project versions.
Fedora treats these two licenses as functionally identical, and calls
them both "zlib".

The third license looks to just be a templated version of the zlib
license.

~tom

==
Fedora Project


Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Tom "spot" Callaway
 

On 12/20/2010 10:26 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same,
with the exception of a longer explanation for clause 1 in the zlib
license and a lengthier disclaimer statement in the libpng license.
Also, the libpng license includes the applicable attribution notices
for the various project versions.
Fedora treats these two licenses as functionally identical, and calls
them both "zlib".

The third license looks to just be a templated version of the zlib license.

~tom

==
Fedora Project


zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

 

I had a question regarding clarifying the zlib and libpng licenses versus what the OSI lists as the zlib/libpng license on their list.  Perhaps Tom, Martin, or Jeff can shed some light on this?  

 

The zlib license can be found here:  http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html

The libpng license can be found here:  http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt

 

It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same, with the exception of a longer explanation for clause 1 in the zlib license and a lengthier disclaimer statement in the libpng license.  Also, the libpng license includes the applicable attribution notices for the various project versions.  

 

Whereas, the OSI has what I would call a generic (no copyright notice at all, nor author name) version of the zlib license.  Yet, OSI lists one, which tracks most closely to the zlib license and calls it zlib/libpng:  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

 

Does anyone have any insight as to why this is this way on the OSI list?  More importantly, how should we handle this for our list?  List all three variations (what the OSI refers to as zlib/libpng and then the specific zlib and libpng separately) or just the OSI version or what?

 

I will post the latest version of the license list (with other changes as discussed in the last few meetings) after this question is resolved.

 

Thanks!

 

Jilayne Lovejoy  |  Corporate Counsel

jlovejoy@...

 

720 240 4545  |  phone

720 240 4556  |  fax

1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free

www.openlogic.com

 

OpenLogic, Inc.

Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021

 


Issue tracker

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

We now have a issue tracker for the SPDX specification and related
tools. Please report any issues you are aware of with the spec or
tools at <http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=spdx>.
(You will need an account but you can easily create one.) This will
ensure our ability to rectify any problems with the spec before the
final release.

All open issues related to SPDX are listed at
<http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=spdx&content=>.

Peter
www.openlogic.com


Minutes from Dec 16 General Meeting

Philip Odence
 


The GM minutes provide a good bi-weekly summary of everything SPDX. 

If you have interest in more closely monitoring or being involved with team activities, you should join team mailing lists: 
L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502


Agenda for Dec 16 SPDX General Meeting

Philip Odence
 

The SPDX General Meeting is for sharing and cross functional coordination between the Technical, Business and Legal Teams. General Meetings are currently scheduled for 60 minutes, but may only require 30 minutes.

Note there will be no General Meeting on Dec 30; we'll resume the biweekly schedule on Jan 13, 2011.


Meeting Time: Dec 16, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 16:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

Conf call dial-in:
Conference code:  7812589502
Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada):  (877) 435-0230
International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732
For those dialing in from other regions, a list of toll free numbers can be found: 
https://www.intercallonline.com/portlets/scheduling/viewNumbers/viewNumber.do?ownerNumber=6053870&audioType=RP&viewGa=false&ga=OFF

Web:
There does not seem to be a need to use the web for this meeting, so for now, no link.
 
Administrative Agenda
Attendance

Technical Team Report - Kate

Business Team Report - Kim

Legal Team Report - Rockett/Karen

Cross Functional Issues - Phil
Sign ups for Team mailing lists.

Action Items


  • Kate- Draft example for LF Member Counsel; include XML and spreadsheet. PENDING
  • Kate- Add back to Spec page in wiki preferred syntax for adding comments. PENDING
  • MichaelH- Write up and share postion on "reporting" vs. "interpreting. NO UPDATE
  • PhilO- Get input on MH position from Legal Team and get resolution.
  • GaryO- Post regular meeting times on Tech Team page.
  • Rockett- Post regular meeting times on Legal Team page.
  • MartinM- Report back on # of people on respective mailing lists.

  • 1301 - 1320 of 1543