Date   

Re: Licence abbreviations?

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

I am taking what you refer to as 'how it is used' to be the equivalent
of the header information that is included in the file. When making
the License List, that column was defined to only being propagated if
the license had a specific header text suggested. Obviously, a small
number of licenses actually include this in the license. If the license
did not make this suggestion, then that column is blank in the list.

If we don't constrain this in some way, then the possibilities would be
endless. Even with the shorter licenses, like MIT, while often the
whole license is included in the file, sometimes I have seen a simple
statement saying something like "this is under the MIT license"

I'm not sure if that is helpful, but hopefully that explains what that
column means in the License List (the Word document with the list
"protocols" should explain this and the same for each column)

-----Original Message-----
From: dmgerman@... [mailto:dmgerman@...] On Behalf Of dmg
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 7:36 PM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: spdx@...
Subject: Re: Licence abbreviations?

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy
<Jlovejoy@...> wrote:
What kind of example did you have in mind? Do you mean an example of a
particular software package that uses a particular license?

A file that contains it. For example, this is the usage of the
GPL-2.0+ (excerpted from a Bison file):

usage is very different from the text of the license itself.

--dmg

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
/* A Bison parser, made by GNU Bison 1.875. */

/* Skeleton parser for Yacc-like parsing with Bison,
Copyright (C) 1984, 1989, 1990, 2000, 2001, 2002 Free Software
Foundation, Inc.

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330,
Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */


--
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org


Re: Seen in file license recognition

Bill Schineller
 

No, I don’t think we should limit the values in “seen in file licenses” to just those which “exact” match the standard header set.
Because I don’t think it is reasonable to expect that SPDX will maintain a comprehensive set of all the variants of headers/texts encountered in files which refer to a specific license in the SPDX license list.  Different producers will ‘see’ header variants in files that the SPDX community hasn’t  yet ‘seen’ before (e.g. differing from standard headers by insignificant punctuation, spelling), but which are clearly referencing a specific license known to SPDX.  SPDX producers should still get to record these observations as ‘seen in file licenses’, shouldn’t they?

Different producers of spdx will inevitably disagree on the values in the list, depending on the thoroughness of their analyses.
The CreatedBy and ReviewedBy fields in SPDX documents will let consumers of SPDX documents know who produced them.
The consumers can consider this information when assessing their risk.

Bill Schineller
Black Duck


On 1/14/11 11:00 AM, "Peter Williams" <peter.williams@...> wrote:

It was clear from the call this morning that when and spdx producer
sees a standard header in a file that license ends up in the "seen in
file licenses" list.  However, for all other licenses/license headers
do we expect those to be listed?  Do we want to limit the values in
"seen in file licenses" to just those that match the standard header
set?  If we don't then different producers of spdx will not agree on
the values in that list.

Peter
openlogic.com
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Bill Schineller
Knowledge Base Manager
Black Duck Software Inc.
T: +1.781.810.1829
F: +1.781.891.5145
E: bschineller@...
http://www.blackducksoftware.com


Re: Seen in file license recognition

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

Yes, I would agree with that, Bill.

 

Jilayne

 


From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Bill Schineller
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 2:50 PM
To: Peter Williams; spdx@...
Subject: Re: Seen in file license recognition

 

No, I don’t think we should limit the values in “seen in file licenses” to just those which “exact” match the standard header set.
Because I don’t think it is reasonable to expect that SPDX will maintain a comprehensive set of all the variants of headers/texts encountered in files which refer to a specific license in the SPDX license list.  Different producers will ‘see’ header variants in files that the SPDX community hasn’t  yet ‘seen’ before (e.g. differing from standard headers by insignificant punctuation, spelling), but which are clearly referencing a specific license known to SPDX.  SPDX producers should still get to record these observations as ‘seen in file licenses’, shouldn’t they?

Different producers of spdx will inevitably disagree on the values in the list, depending on the thoroughness of their analyses.
The CreatedBy and ReviewedBy fields in SPDX documents will let consumers of SPDX documents know who produced them.
The consumers can consider this information when assessing their risk.

Bill Schineller
Black Duck


On 1/14/11 11:00 AM, "Peter Williams" <peter.williams@...> wrote:

It was clear from the call this morning that when and spdx producer
sees a standard header in a file that license ends up in the "seen in
file licenses" list.  However, for all other licenses/license headers
do we expect those to be listed?  Do we want to limit the values in
"seen in file licenses" to just those that match the standard header
set?  If we don't then different producers of spdx will not agree on
the values in that list.

Peter
openlogic.com
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Bill Schineller
Knowledge Base Manager
Black Duck Software Inc.
T: +1.781.810.1829
F: +1.781.891.5145
E: bschineller@...
http://www.blackducksoftware.com


Re: Purpose of licensing info

dmg
 

From the point of view of maintenance of SPDX files, it would be
useful to say, in this case:

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
<scott.k.peterson@...> wrote:
(3)

In the file:

“See COPYING” [where the COPYING file is a copy of the GPL]
License: Same as [COPYING]

And COPYING

License: GPL-v2+

The license of the referring file might change without the file
actually being modified.

Basically, allow transitivity in the specification of the license.
Another alternative is to
include inthe referring file the actual license (GPLv2+) and a
standardized note saying:
this license comes from that file COPYING. That way if COPYING changes license
(the actual license changed, or it was incorrectly assessed in the
first place...etc)
this file should change license too.


--dmg

Metadata:

asserted license: GPL-2.0

license information in file: “See COPYING”



Is my understanding of the intent for recording information about what was
actually in the file correct?



-- Scott



--
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org


Linux Collaboration Summit

Philip Odence
 

The Business and Technical teams will be holding half-day face-to-face meetings at the Collaboration Summit April 6-8. Please consider joining us.
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


Re: Linux Collaboration Summit

guillaume.rousseau@antelink.com
 

I requested the invitation this morning.
Best Regards.
Guillaume

Le 17/01/11 13:23, Philip Odence a écrit :
The Business and Technical teams will be holding half-day face-to-face meetings at the Collaboration Summit April 6-8. Please consider joining us.
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


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


-- 
Guillaume ROUSSEAU
CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink 
Président, Cofondateur, Antelink

18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France
http://www.antelink.com/
NEW PHONE NUMBER : +33 1 42 39 30 78


Re: Linux Collaboration Summit

Landon Jurgens <slick666@...>
 

Already got mine in too. Hope to see you all there.


On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:00 AM, ROUSSEAU Guillaume <guillaume.rousseau@...> wrote:
I requested the invitation this morning.
Best Regards.
Guillaume

Le 17/01/11 13:23, Philip Odence a écrit :
The Business and Technical teams will be holding half-day face-to-face meetings at the Collaboration Summit April 6-8. Please consider joining us.
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

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


-- 
Guillaume ROUSSEAU
CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink 
Président, Cofondateur, Antelink

18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France
http://www.antelink.com/
NEW PHONE NUMBER : +33 1 42 39 30 78


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx



Re: new version of License List uploaded

Kim Weins
 

Thanks Jilayne

After looking this over, we are pretty well aligned with two exceptions

  1. Debian excludes the “.0” on ends of versions (eg Apache-1 instead of Apache-1.0)
  2. Debian uses GFDL for GNU Free Documentation License and we use FDL.

I would be fine with changing out names to match Debian on both the items above.  That makes it easy and saves us from trying to negotiate changes.

Kim


On Fri 1/14/11 2:00 PM, "Jilayne Lovejoy" <Jlovejoy@...> wrote:

I just uploaded v1.5 of the License List spreadsheet and accompanying guidelines/notes document to the SPDX website here:
http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list
 
This version reflects adds a column for comparison to the Debian short name protocols and list (http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/) and some comments where there were differences in license long names.  Notes/observations/questions re: these additions below (this is also listed on the Word doc associated with the license):
 
  • Column added for comparison to Debian license list short names:
    • If left blank, then license not on Debian list
    • If short name is the same, then “same” entered in this column
    • If short name is different, then Debian variation entered here
      • Debian uses Expat license instead of MIT; Expat is not on SPDX list ??
      • Debian identifies GPL font and SSL exception which were not on SPDX list; font exception was added to SPDX list
        • Should we add the SSL exception? It looks like a suggestion more than a standard exception based on the info contained in a link.  I’ve never seen this one before – anyone have any thoughts on this?
      • SPDX list had exceptions not on Debian list, but short names using Debian short names rules listed in this column
      • Debian lists Perl as a license, but this is really a disjunctive licensing situation with either GPL or Artistic; it doesn’t seem like “Perl” should be listed as a separate license in this case as there are other scenarios like this
      • Added other GFDL v1.1 and v1.3 to license list, as they were missing
        • Debian lists GNU Free Documentation License with no invariant sections à did not add this… ??

 
Jilayne Lovejoy |  Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...
 
720 240 4545  |  phone
720 240 4556  |  fax
1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free
www.openlogic.com <http://www.openlogic.com>
 
OpenLogic, Inc.
Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
 


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

The license of a license file is not necessarily the license defined
in that file. For example, if the file COPYING contains the text of
the GPL-v2 its license should be

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of
this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

because that is license under which the fsf allows copying the text of
the gpl.[1]

We could add a new property for license files to indicate the
license(s) they define/provide, separate from the license under which
they may be copied. Doing so would allow a transitivity approach.

Peter
openlogic.com

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:30 PM, dmg <dmg@...> wrote:
From the point of view of maintenance of SPDX files, it would be
useful to say, in this case:

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
<scott.k.peterson@...> wrote:
(3)

In the file:

“See COPYING” [where the COPYING file is a copy of the GPL]
License: Same as [COPYING]

And COPYING

License: GPL-v2+

The license of the referring file might change without the file
actually being modified.

Basically, allow transitivity in the specification of the license.
Another alternative is to
include inthe referring file the actual license (GPLv2+) and a
standardized note saying:
this license comes from that file COPYING. That way if COPYING changes license
(the actual license changed, or it was incorrectly assessed in the
first place...etc)
this file should change license too.


--dmg

Metadata:

asserted license: GPL-2.0

license information in file: “See COPYING”



Is my understanding of the intent for recording information about what was
actually in the file correct?



-- Scott



--
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx



SPDX Face-to-Face at Linux Collaboration Summit

Philip Koltun
 

SPDX Mailing List:
 
This is a heads-up that the Linux Collaboration Summit scheduled for April 6-8, 2011 in San Francisco will include two half-day sessions for SPDX face-to-face meetings.  Please see http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/collaboration-summit for the conference home page and a link to request an invitation to this invitation-only event.
 
Thursday afternoon, April 7, and Friday morning, April 8, will be reserved for the SPDX face-to-face meetings.  One half-day will address SPDX technical issues and one half-day for SPDX business/legal/rollout issues.  More details will be forthcoming.
 
In addition to the Collaboration Summit plenary presentations on April 6, a number of informative talks on FOSS compliance will be scheduled for the morning of April 7.
 
Please make plans to come to the Collaboration Summit.  Now is the time to request your invitation!
 
Regards,
 
Phil Koltun
Director, Open Compliance Program
The Linux Foundation


spdx-tech weekly meeting

Bill Schineller
 

(Intentionally cross-posting meeting invite to main mailing list to reach
potential audience, although we keep tech discussions on spdx-tech)

Just a reminder that the spdx-tech group meets on
Tuesdays at 16:00 GMT (8:00AM Pacific Time, 11:00 AM Eastern Time). 

(i.e. - today...)

Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada): (877) 435-0230;
International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732;
Conference code: 7833942033. 
URL: http://blackducksoftware.na6.acrobat.com/spdxrdf/

All are welcome.

We generally review what's been going around in our mailing list
https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/

with an eye towards formalizing proposals
http://spdx.org/wiki/proposals

Among today's discussion topics:
- Kate's grammar for the 'tag-value' format / DEB-5
- Gary's slides for tools to be made available
- recap / status of inclusion of new license fields


Bill Schineller
Knowledge Base Manager
Black Duck Software Inc.
T: +1.781.810.1829
F: +1.781.891.5145
E: bschineller@...
http://www.blackducksoftware.com


Reminder of SPDX Business call Thurs

Kim Weins
 

We are set for 11amET/8am PT.  Call logistics below.

We will be reviewing the slides for the Beta Program.  I’ve attached my section of the slides here.


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

ID 2404502

Web Meeting
Www.readytalk.com
ID 2404502


Re: Reminder of SPDX Business call Thurs

guillaume.rousseau@antelink.com
 

Kim,
I won't be able to attend the confcall.
I read the attached version of the slide, and wonder if we could request some feedbacks and suggestions for improvement (slide 5)
about the documentation and the training sessions provided during the Beta program (slide 8).

Slide 3: I guess there will be a call to participate to the beta program (in March ?) and open applications during few weeks.
By the way, we (Antelink) plan to join the beta program.

Best regards,

Guillaume


Le 20/01/11 01:06, Kim Weins a écrit :
We are set for 11amET/8am PT.  Call logistics below.

We will be reviewing the slides for the Beta Program.  I’ve attached my section of the slides here.


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

ID 2404502

Web Meeting
Www.readytalk.com
ID 2404502

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


-- 
Guillaume ROUSSEAU
CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink 
Président, Cofondateur, Antelink

18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France
http://www.antelink.com/
NEW PHONE NUMBER : +33 1 42 39 30 78


Re: Purpose of licensing info

dmg
 

Peter> The license of a license file is not necessarily the license defined
Peter> in that file. For example, if the file COPYING contains the text of
Peter> the GPL-v2 its license should be

Peter> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of
Peter> this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Thanks Peter, this is something I haven't thought about!

--dmg

--
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org/
http://silvernegative.com/
dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .


Minutes available from Business Meeting

Kim Weins
 

We reviewed slides for the Beta Orientation scheduled for Feb 3rd.  See minutes and drafts of preso at

http://www.spdx.org/wiki/business-team-meeting-agendaminutes-20110120

Kim


Re: Reminder of SPDX Business call Thurs

Kim Weins
 

Hi Guillaume

Please feel free to send any feedback via email to the spdx-biz@... list.  

We would love to have you participate in the Beta.  We will be doing a Beta Orientation on Thursday, Feb 3 (in 2 weeks) for companies interested in the Beta Program.  I will include you in the invite.  

Kim


On Thu 1/20/11 2:00 AM, "ROUSSEAU Guillaume" <guillaume.rousseau@...> wrote:

  Kim,
 I won't be able to attend the confcall.
 I read the attached version of the slide, and wonder if we could request some feedbacks and suggestions for improvement (slide 5)
 about the documentation and the training sessions provided during the Beta program (slide 8).
 
 Slide 3: I guess there will be a call to participate to the beta program (in March ?) and open applications during few weeks.
 By the way, we (Antelink) plan to join the beta program.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Guillaume
 
 
 Le 20/01/11 01:06, Kim Weins a écrit :
Reminder of SPDX Business call Thurs We are set for 11amET/8am PT.  Call logistics below.
 
 We will be reviewing the slides for the Beta Program.  I’ve attached my section of the slides here.
 
 
 Call
 
US  866-740-1260
 Int'l  http://www.readytalk.com/support/international-numbers.php
 
 ID 2404502
 
 Web Meeting
 Www.readytalk.com <http://Www.readytalk.com>
 ID 2404502



_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
 

 
 


Web site upgrade

Martin Michlmayr
 

I upgraded some components of our web site today. If you notice any
problems, please let me know.

--
Martin Michlmayr
Open Source Program Office, Hewlett-Packard


today's spdx-tech weekly call at 4pm Eastern time

Bill Schineller
 

(Intentionally cross-posting meeting invite to main mailing list to reach
potential audience, although we keep tech discussions on spdx-tech)

Today's spdx-tech call will be at 4pm Eastern Time
(usually it is at 11, changed today due to team member conflicts)


Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada): (877) 435-0230;
International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732;
Conference code: 7833942033. 
URL: http://blackducksoftware.na6.acrobat.com/spdxrdf/

All are welcome.

We generally review what's been going around in our mailing list
https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/

with an eye towards formalizing proposals
http://spdx.org/wiki/proposals






Bill Schineller
Knowledge Base Manager
Black Duck Software Inc.
T: +1.781.810.1829
F: +1.781.891.5145
E: bschineller@...
http://www.blackducksoftware.com


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

** For SPDX Legal WorkStream **

As a means to drive comments/redlines, below please find were we left off in the last SPDX Legal Workstream Call for the following Sections.

Many thanks,

Rockett

***

Proposal: section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec will become 3 fields:


5.3a Concluded License(s)

5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license concluded as governing the file, if it can be determined. If no license information can be concluded, the license is denoted as "Unknown". The licenses should use the standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms. If a Concluded License is not one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one license is concluded in the file, then each should be listed. If any of the concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses, then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive" license.

5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform method to refer to the license that is concluded to represent the file with specificity to eliminate any license confusion. For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD. If there is a conflict between the Concluded License(s) and Detected License(s) Information, the Concluded License(s) controls, and the rationale for the Concluded License must be recited in the License Comment field.

5.3a.3 Cardinality: Mandatory, one.

5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseConcluded:"

5.3a.5 RDF: TBD (include Disjunctive form here)

5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in Appendix I> | "FullLicense"-N

5.3a.7 Example:

LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0



5.3b Detected License(s) Information

5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license information recited in the file, if any. It will be explicit from the file header or other information found in the file's source code. If no license information is found it should be denoted as "NotSpecified". If no license information can be determined, the license is denoted as "Unknown". The licenses should use the standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms. If a Detected License Information does not correspond to one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one license is detected in the file, then each should be listed. If any of the detected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses, then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive" license.

5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform method to refer to each license objectively detected with specificity to eliminate any license confusion. For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD.

5.3b.3 Cardinality: Mandatory, one or many.

5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:"

5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if multiple many should be specified )

5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in Appendix I> | "FullLicense"-N

5.3b.7 Example:

LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0

LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2



5.3c License Comments

5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description of the analysis and any relevent background references that went in to arriving at the Concluded License(s) for a file, if the Concluded License(s) does not match the Detected License(s) Information, such rationale must be recited by the reviewer in this field.

5.3c.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to provide technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical explanation of how the Concluded License(s) was determined if it does not match the Detected License(s) Information.

5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance

5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:"

5.3c.5 RDF: TBD

5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with </text>.

5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The Concluded License(s) was taken from the package level that the file was included in. </text>

***

On 2011-01-20, at 7:20 AM, D M German wrote:



Peter> The license of a license file is not necessarily the license defined
Peter> in that file. For example, if the file COPYING contains the text of
Peter> the GPL-v2 its license should be

Peter> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of
Peter> this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Thanks Peter, this is something I haven't thought about!

--dmg

--
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org/
http://silvernegative.com/
dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Re: new version of License List uploaded

Tom Incorvia
 

Hi Jilayne,

 

On the legal call today I offered to do a last look at the Debian / SPDX license name differences.

 

I agree with Kim:

 

The exclusion of “.0” in cases where the license issuer does not use that makes sense

 

The Debian abbreviation of the GNU Free Documentation License is a far more common use that the FDL that we chose, so let’s use GFDL.

 

Tom

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850

 

From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kim Weins
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 10:44 AM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy; SPDX
Subject: Re: new version of License List uploaded

 

Thanks Jilayne

After looking this over, we are pretty well aligned with two exceptions

  1. Debian excludes the “.0” on ends of versions (eg Apache-1 instead of Apache-1.0)
  2. Debian uses GFDL for GNU Free Documentation License and we use FDL.


I would be fine with changing out names to match Debian on both the items above.  That makes it easy and saves us from trying to negotiate changes.

Kim


On Fri 1/14/11 2:00 PM, "Jilayne Lovejoy" <Jlovejoy@...> wrote:

I just uploaded v1.5 of the License List spreadsheet and accompanying guidelines/notes document to the SPDX website here:
http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list
 
This version reflects adds a column for comparison to the Debian short name protocols and list (http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/) and some comments where there were differences in license long names.  Notes/observations/questions re: these additions below (this is also listed on the Word doc associated with the license):
 

  • Column added for comparison to Debian license list short names:
    • If left blank, then license not on Debian list
    • If short name is the same, then “same” entered in this column
    • If short name is different, then Debian variation entered here
      • Debian uses Expat license instead of MIT; Expat is not on SPDX list ??
      • Debian identifies GPL font and SSL exception which were not on SPDX list; font exception was added to SPDX list
        • Should we add the SSL exception? It looks like a suggestion more than a standard exception based on the info contained in a link.  I’ve never seen this one before – anyone have any thoughts on this?
      • SPDX list had exceptions not on Debian list, but short names using Debian short names rules listed in this column
      • Debian lists Perl as a license, but this is really a disjunctive licensing situation with either GPL or Artistic; it doesn’t seem like “Perl” should be listed as a separate license in this case as there are other scenarios like this
      • Added other GFDL v1.1 and v1.3 to license list, as they were missing
        • Debian lists GNU Free Documentation License with no invariant sections à did not add this… ??


 
Jilayne Lovejoy |  Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...
 
720 240 4545  |  phone
720 240 4556  |  fax
1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free
www.openlogic.com <http://www.openlogic.com>
 
OpenLogic, Inc.
Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
 


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx

 

Click here to report this email as spam.

This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController.

281 - 300 of 1604