Date   

[Update] SPDX Legal Workstream (Rollout) Call 11ET/10CT/8PT

mgia3940@motorola.com <mgia3940@...>
 

All:

A few items for today's SPDX Legal Workstream Meeting:

(A) For those not in the US, I provided International dial in numbers below.

(B) For those in Boston for the Project Harmony meeting, Karen has provided a conference room for our SPDX meeting, so we can do both @ Choate Hall & Stewart LLP.

(C) Meeting Agenda is below.

Many thanks,

Rockett

***
-- International Dial In Numbers --

Toll Free / Free Phone Conference Access Numbers for Motorola
Country
Toll free number
AUSTRALIA
1800003691
AUSTRIA
0800292117
BELGIUM
080077968
CANADA
8772832663
CHINA Netcom (CNC)*
10 800 712 3245
10 800 714 0551

CHINA Telecom (CT)*
10 800 120 3245
DENMARK
80703158
FINLAND
0800770232
FRANCE
0800941694
GERMANY
08001014510
GREECE
0080016122038641
HONG KONG
800967971
HUNGARY
0680015286
INDIA (Bharti) **
000 800 001 2005
INDIA (Reliance)
000195
INDIA (VSNL)
0008001005009
INDIA (ALL OTHER CARRIERS) **
000 800 100 6006
INDONESIA
008800105490 (mobile excluded)
INDONESIA Alternate
0018030113665 (mobile excluded)

IRELAND
1800944115
ISRAEL
1809458641
ITALY
800781687
JAPAN
00531160347
LUXEMBOURG
80023984
MALAYSIA
1 800 802 411
MONACO
80093182
NETHERLANDS
08002658218
NEW ZEALAND
0800447808
NORWAY
80057408
PHILIPPINES
180011100676
POLAND
008001114561
PORTUGAL
800819894
RUSSIA
81080022521012
SINGAPORE
800 120 0250
SOUTH AFRICA
0800990934
SOUTH KOREA
00308140426
SPAIN
900971504
SWEDEN
0201400558
SWITZERLAND
0800563963
TAIWAN, THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA
00801126569
THAILAND
0018001562038641
UNITED KINGDOM
08006920816
UNITED STATES
8772832663


-- Agenda SPDX Legal Workstream --

(1) Introductions

(2) Bridge from Licensing Interim Workstream

(3) Review minutes/issues from last Licensing SubTeam Meeting - http://spdx.org/wiki/license-subteam-minutes-20101203

(4) Discuss Current License List & Review -- http://spdx.org/licenses/

(5) Discuss License Template Creation

(6) Discuss Temporary Freeze of License List (30 days)

(7) Action - Create Process/Method to Add Licenses

(8) Any Remaining Beta 1.0 Spec Questions - http://spdx.org/spec/current


Re: Python History and License

Tom Incorvia
 

For Today’s Legal Stream Call (attached).  Tom

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850

 

From: Tom Incorvia
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:31 AM
To: 'spdx@...'
Cc: 'Jilayne Lovejoy'; 'kate.stewart@...'; 'Esteban Rockett'; 'Kim Weins'
Subject: RE: Python History and License

 

Some additional information has been added to the Python license graphic (attached). 

 

Based on the new information, it appears that the stand alone CNRI license on opensource.org is ONLY for the licensing of the beta version of python 1.6.1.  Kate Stewart and I will confirm this with Python Legal. 

 

Tom

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850

From: Tom Incorvia
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:14 AM
To: spdx@...
Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; kate.stewart@...; Esteban Rockett; Kim Weins
Subject: RE: Python History and License

 

New Proposal for SPDX license tracking related to the Python project and Python “License”:

 

1.       Track "Python License" separate from "Python License Stack". 

a.       The Python Programming Language, regardless of version, would be attributed to the stack

b.      However, other projects can be licensed specifically under the Python License (which is ONLY the first license in the stack).

 

That’s it.

 

An update to the graphic from two weeks ago is attached.  The highlighted portions are new.

 

Tom

 

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850



This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController.


[Update] SPDX Legal Workstream (Rollout) Call 11ET/10CT/8PT

mgia3940@motorola.com <mgia3940@...>
 


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.


  • 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


    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


    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

     


    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


    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 12/21/2010 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

    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 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

    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


    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

    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


    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: 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.


    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


    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


    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

    221 - 240 of 1604