Date   

Updated Invitation: SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT @ Every 2 weeks from 8am to 9am on Wednesday from Wed Mar 9 to Wed Oct 19 (spdx@fossbazaar.org)

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

This event has been changed.

SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT

Changed: All:

Re-sending invite for regular bi-weekly SPDX Legal Workstream call.

Many thanks,

Rockett

Motorola Inc.
E.A. Rockett
Senior Counsel
Software, Applications &
Digital Content Licensing
(408)541-6703 (O)
(408)541-6900 (F)
(415)508-7625 (M)
rockett@...

When
Every 2 weeks from 8am to 9am on Wednesday from Wed Mar 9 to Wed Oct 19 Pacific Time
Where
Conference Bridge 1.877.825.8522 PIN:0376146 (map)
Calendar
spdx@...
Who
Esteban Rockett - organizer
amanda.brock@...
sadams@...
tony.gomes@...
feb.cabrasawan@...
rfontana@...
jmcbroom@...
Alexandra.Siegel@...
linda.shih@...
mpierovi@...
kathleen.mullins@...
rtiller@...
JOHN ELLIS
alastern@...
Mikko.Amper@...
adcohn@...
paul.madick@...
ilardi@...
areid@...
tom.incorvia@...
Mansour Ghomeshi
smortin@...
owen.james.boyle@...
scott.k.peterson@...
bgieseman@...
Guy.Colpitts@...
pmcbride@...
tcarlson@...
spaek@...
andrew.wilson@...
barbara.reilly@...
jwacha@...
bkahin@...
mrc@...
andrew.updegrove@...
mccoy.smith@...
ssemel@...
gsjones@...
kcopenhaver@...
spdx@...
spdx-legal-request@...

Going?   All events in this series:   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account spdx@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


Invitation: SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT @ Every 2 weeks from 8am to 9am on Wednesday from Wed Mar 9 to Wed Oct 19 (spdx@fossbazaar.org)

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT

All:

Re-sendign invite for regular bi-weekyl SPDX Legal Workstream call.

Many thanks,

Rockett

Motorola Inc.
E.A. Rockett
Senior Counsel
Software, Applications &
Digital Content Licensing
(408)541-6703 (O)
(408)541-6900 (F)
(415)508-7625 (M)
rockett@...

When
Every 2 weeks from 8am to 9am on Wednesday from Wed Mar 9 to Wed Oct 19 Pacific Time
Where
Conference Bridge 1.877.825.8522 PIN:0376146 (map)
Calendar
spdx@...
Who
Esteban Rockett - organizer
amanda.brock@...
sadams@...
tony.gomes@...
feb.cabrasawan@...
rfontana@...
jmcbroom@...
Alexandra.Siegel@...
linda.shih@...
mpierovi@...
kathleen.mullins@...
rtiller@...
JOHN ELLIS
alastern@...
Mikko.Amper@...
adcohn@...
paul.madick@...
ilardi@...
areid@...
tom.incorvia@...
Mansour Ghomeshi
smortin@...
owen.james.boyle@...
scott.k.peterson@...
bgieseman@...
Guy.Colpitts@...
pmcbride@...
tcarlson@...
spaek@...
andrew.wilson@...
barbara.reilly@...
jwacha@...
bkahin@...
mrc@...
andrew.updegrove@...
mccoy.smith@...
ssemel@...
gsjones@...
kcopenhaver@...
spdx@...
spdx-legal-request@...

Going?   All events in this series:   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account spdx@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


Invitation: SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT @ Every 2 weeks from 8am to 9am on Wednesday from Wed Mar 9 to Wed Oct 19 (spdx@fossbazaar.org)

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT

All:

Re-sendign invite for regular bi-weekyl SPDX Legal Workstream call.

Many thanks,

Rockett

Motorola Inc.
E.A. Rockett
Senior Counsel
Software, Applications &
Digital Content Licensing
(408)541-6703 (O)
(408)541-6900 (F)
(415)508-7625 (M)
rockett@...

When
Every 2 weeks from 8am to 9am on Wednesday from Wed Mar 9 to Wed Oct 19 Pacific Time
Where
Conference Bridge 1.877.825.8522 PIN:0376146 (map)
Calendar
spdx@...
Who
Esteban Rockett - organizer
amanda.brock@...
sadams@...
tony.gomes@...
feb.cabrasawan@...
rfontana@...
jmcbroom@...
Alexandra.Siegel@...
linda.shih@...
mpierovi@...
kathleen.mullins@...
rtiller@...
JOHN ELLIS
alastern@...
Mikko.Amper@...
adcohn@...
paul.madick@...
ilardi@...
areid@...
tom.incorvia@...
Mansour Ghomeshi
smortin@...
owen.james.boyle@...
scott.k.peterson@...
bgieseman@...
Guy.Colpitts@...
pmcbride@...
tcarlson@...
spaek@...
andrew.wilson@...
barbara.reilly@...
jwacha@...
bkahin@...
mrc@...
andrew.updegrove@...
mccoy.smith@...
ssemel@...
gsjones@...
kcopenhaver@...
spdx@...
spdx-legal-request@...

Going?   All events in this series:   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account spdx@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


Updated Invitation: SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT @ Wed Mar 2 8am - 9am (spdx@fossbazaar.org)

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

This event has been changed.

SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT

All:

This calendar appointment is for the next SPDX Legal Workstream call; where those in Boston for Project Harmony (meeting 1 hour later) are asked to attend in person at the Law Offices of Choate Hall & Stewart.

Many thanks,

Rockett

Motorola Inc.
E.A. Rockett
Senior Counsel
Software, Applications &
Digital Content Licensing
(408)541-6703 (O)
(408)541-6900 (F)
(415)508-7625 (M)
rockett@...

When
Changed: Wed Mar 2 8am – 9am Pacific Time
Where
Conference Bridge 1.877.825.8522 PIN:0376146 (map)
Calendar
spdx@...
Who
Esteban Rockett - organizer
amanda.brock@...
sadams@...
tony.gomes@...
feb.cabrasawan@...
rfontana@...
jmcbroom@...
Alexandra.Siegel@...
linda.shih@...
mpierovi@...
kathleen.mullins@...
rtiller@...
JOHN ELLIS
alastern@...
Mikko.Amper@...
adcohn@...
paul.madick@...
ilardi@...
areid@...
owen.james.boyle@...
smortin@...
Mansour Ghomeshi
scott.k.peterson@...
Guy.Colpitts@...
bgieseman@...
pmcbride@...
tcarlson@...
spaek@...
andrew.wilson@...
barbara.reilly@...
jwacha@...
bkahin@...
mrc@...
andrew.updegrove@...
mccoy.smith@...
ssemel@...
gsjones@...
kcopenhaver@...
spdx@...
spdx-legal-request@...
tom.incorvia@...

Going?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account spdx@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


Updated Invitation: SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT @ Thu Mar 3 8am - 9am (spdx@fossbazaar.org)

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

This event has been changed.

SPDX Legal Workstream Call 11ET/10CT/8PT

All:

This calendar appointment is for the next SPDX Legal Workstream call; where those in Boston for Project Harmony (meeting 1 hour later) are asked to attend in person at the Law Offices of Choate Hall & Stewart.

Many thanks,

Rockett

Motorola Inc.
E.A. Rockett
Senior Counsel
Software, Applications &
Digital Content Licensing
(408)541-6703 (O)
(408)541-6900 (F)
(415)508-7625 (M)
rockett@...

When
Changed: Thu Mar 3 8am – 9am Pacific Time
Where
Conference Bridge 1.877.825.8522 PIN:0376146 (map)
Calendar
spdx@...
Who
Esteban Rockett - organizer
amanda.brock@...
sadams@...
tony.gomes@...
feb.cabrasawan@...
rfontana@...
jmcbroom@...
Alexandra.Siegel@...
linda.shih@...
mpierovi@...
kathleen.mullins@...
rtiller@...
JOHN ELLIS
alastern@...
Mikko.Amper@...
adcohn@...
paul.madick@...
ilardi@...
areid@...
owen.james.boyle@...
smortin@...
Mansour Ghomeshi
scott.k.peterson@...
Guy.Colpitts@...
bgieseman@...
pmcbride@...
tcarlson@...
spaek@...
andrew.wilson@...
barbara.reilly@...
jwacha@...
bkahin@...
mrc@...
andrew.updegrove@...
mccoy.smith@...
ssemel@...
gsjones@...
kcopenhaver@...
spdx@...
spdx-legal-request@...
tom.incorvia@...

Going?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account spdx@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


Human readable data format

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

The idea of using a human readable format as the primary format in the
beta program was mentioned on the cross functional call this morning.
It think that is a great idea. However, there did not seem to be a
consensus on which of the available formats would be the easiest for
uninitiated users to understand. I thought some concrete examples
might help move this discussion forward, so i put together some
strawman examples the possible formats.

Attached is the zlib 1.2.5 example that openlogic published last year
in three different formats. The .spdx file is the data stored in the
tag-value format. The .xml file is the data stored as rdf/xml. The
.html file is the data stored as a rdfa annotated html. All three of
these files contain exactly the same information. All three are
machine readable. All three are well suited for the purpose of data
interchange.

Peter
openlogic.com

ps: Sorry for sending this to the full group but this topic originated
in the cross functional call so it seems appropriate to have the
discussion here. Also it seems to be an issue that effects all the
teams.


Re: Update on spdx subscriber numbers

Martin Michlmayr
 

* Martin Michlmayr <tbm@...> [2011-02-11 10:01]:
Here's an update:

spdx: 95
spdx-biz: 11
spxd-legal: 17
spdx-tech: 16
spdx: 95
spdx-biz: 15
spdx-legal: 21
spdx-tech: 20

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


Canceled Event: SPDX Legal Workstream Bi-Weekly Call 11ET/10CT/8PT @ Wed Feb 23 8am - 9am (spdx@fossbazaar.org)

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

This event has been canceled and removed from your calendar.

SPDX Legal Workstream Bi-Weekly Call 11ET/10CT/8PT

Happy New Year to all.

This calendar appointment is for our regular bi-weekly SPDX Legal Workstream call.

Many thanks,

Rockett

Motorola Inc.
E.A. Rockett
Senior Counsel
Software, Applications &
Digital Content Licensing
(408)541-6703 (O)
(408)541-6900 (F)
(415)508-7625 (M)
rockett@...

When
Wed Feb 23 8am – 9am Pacific Time
Where
Conference Bridge 1.877.825.8522 PIN:0376146 (map)
Calendar
spdx@...
Who
Esteban Rockett - organizer

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account spdx@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


Feb 24 SPDX General Meeting

Philip Odence
 

I am out of the country and will likely not be able to attend, so Kate will run.

Meeting Time: Feb 24, 8am PST / 10 am CST / 11am EST / 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:
none
 
Administrative Agenda
Attendance

Technical Team Report - Kate

Business Team Report - Kim/JohnE

Legal Team Report - Rockett/Karen

Cross Functional Issues – Kate (for Phil)
Collaboration Summit


Action Items

Most of the action items belong with the Teams. So, in addition to statusing, we will dispatch them to the respective teams and will not continue to track in this meeting. Action items for this meeting will be cross functional.
• Kate/Kim- Draft example for LF Member Counsel; include XML and spreadsheet. PENDING
• MichaelH/Rockett- Write up and share postion on "reporting" vs. "interpreting. PENDING
• MartinM- Report back on # of people on respective mailing lists. DONE, BUT LET'S KEEP UPDATIN
• Kim/Kate- Provide PhilK with paragraph descriptions of Collab Summit sessions by 2/17


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
Skype: philip.odence


Minutes from Biz team meeting

Kim Weins
 


Agenda/Minutes 2011 Feb 17

1. Beta program update

2. Volunteers for beta coordinator

3. Beta materials

4. Product management question on tools reqts

Participants
  • Kim Weins
  • Phil Koltun
  • Phil Odence
  • Kirsten Newcomer
  • Gary O'Neall
  • Mark Gisi
  • Esteban Rockett
  • Scott Lamons
  • Jilayne Lovejoy
Notes
  • We reviewed status of Beta sites.
    • 3 confirmed trading partner pairs
      • HP - WindRiver
      • Motorola - TI
      • Antelink - community project (OpenLogic will create SPDX file for Antelink)
    • Possibles - still determining
      • Mentor Graphics
      • ASUS
      • Alcatel-Lucent (as another trading partner for HP)
      • Fedora
  •  Beta coordinators
    • We asked for volunteers to be beta coordinators.  They will help project manage a particular trading partner pair and make sure beta is moving smoothly.  VOlunteers are:
      • Kim Weins
      • Phil Odence
      • Kirsten Newcomer
      • Gary O'Neall
    • We may need additional volunteers depending on the number of beta sites.  Let Kim know if you are interested
  • Beta materials
    • We discussed the materials that will be needed for Beta and who volunteered to work on them
      • Process overview (proposed methodology) - still need a volunteer
      • Training materials
        • SPDX overview - business - Kim
        • SPDX technical - ask technical team for a volunteer
      • Documentation on tools - Kirsten N to write, Scott L to help test/review
      • FAQ on using the spec
        • Kim and tech team for techncial stuff
      • Bug system
    • Timing - goal is to be done with materials be end of March.  Drafts are due Mar 17.  That will give last 2 weeks of Mar for review/edits
  • Question on tool requirements
    • Gary O'Neall asked beta participants (3 were on call) for preference of RDF vs tag-value format.  Beta people wanted to check with their technical folks, but general consensus was either that they didn't care which format or leaned toward RDF.
    • Kim forwarded questionnaire to Betas after the call to ask for add'l feedback


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


Python Licensing and SPDX License List

Tom Incorvia
 

At the recent SPDX general call, I offered to clarify Python licensing and to suggest standard names. 

 

This set of licenses is messy, and a long discussion is below. There is not a single logical answer.  Here are the compromise recommendations gleaned from the details below:

 

========== Summary  =====================

1.       We work with Van Lindberg to remove the CNRI Python License listed on opensource.org

2.       SPDX removes the CNRI Python license and link from the SPDX Rev-1 list

3.       SPDX deals ONLY with the stack of 4 licenses applicable to Python 2.0.1 through 3.2, and uses the following naming conventions:

-          License Identifier: “Python-2.0”

-          Full Name: “Python Software Foundation License v2”

-          “Official” license text is obtained from: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/PythonSoftFoundation

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


Details:

 

Based on discussions with Van Lindberg (thanks for the referral Kate Stewart), we have confirmed that the various Python releases are licensed as follows:

 

a.       Python 0.9.0 through 1.2: Licensed solely via the:

                     i.             CWI License Agreement for Python (“CWI License”)

b.      Python 1.3 through 1.6.0 (assuming that you have licensed Python 1.6.0 but NOT licensed 1.6.1 or anything beyond 1.6.1): Licensed via the 2-license stack consisting of the

                     i.            CWI License, AND the

                   ii.            CNRI License Agreement for Python with Virginia choice of law (“CNRI License Virginia”)

c.       Python 1.3 through 1.6.1: (assuming that you HAVE licensed Python 1.6.1): Licensed via the 2-license stack consisting of the 2-license stack consisting of the

                     i.            CWI License, AND the

                   ii.            CNRI License with the “limited” Virginia choice of law (“CNRI License Limited-Virginia”)

d.      Python 2.0: Licensed by the 3-license stack consisting of the

                     i.            CWI License, AND the

                   ii.            CNRI License Limited-Virginia AND the

                  iii.            BeOPEN.COM license Agreement for Python (“BeOPEN License”)

e.      Python 2.0.1 thru 3.2: Licensed by the 4-license stack consisting of the

                     i.            CWI License, AND the

                   ii.            CNRI License Limited-Virginia, AND the

                  iii.            BeOpen license, AND the

                 iv.            Python Software Foundation License (“PSF License”)

 

Also, we determined that the CNRI Python License listed on opensource.org is out of date and should be removed.  Van Lindberg will make the arrangements for the removal of this license.  

 

As such, I recommend that we remove the CNRI Python license and link from the SPDX Rev-1 list – its applicability is very limited (Python 0.9.0 through 1.2, which are not available on the Python site other than a single release, 0.9.1 that is described as “a historical relic”).

 

I do not believe that we have dealt previously with a “License Stack” in a context like a. through e. above.  There are issues with older versions of this license stack (for instance, different legal terms for certain versions of Python depending on whether you have or have not licensed a follow-on version).  These issues make licensing for older versions of Python difficult to ascertain without knowing the full history of versions that were obtained. 

 

Also, the naming, even of the initial license in the Python stack, is not consistent.  Opensource.org names the initial license “PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2”; the Python site, however, generally suffixes the initial license with the version of Python – but not always.  The use of “Version 2” by opensource.org probably was based on the assumption that Python 2 and above are licensed via the full stack.  However, the initial release of Python 2.0 is licensed under a three-license stack rather than the four-license stack that includes the PSF License.  Also, very small changes have been made to the text of the various licenses depending on the version of Python that was released. 

 

For all the reasons above, I recommend that we compromise as follows:

 

For the initial SPDX license list release, I recommend that we only deal with the stack of 4 licenses applicable to Python 2.0.1 through 3.2, and use the following naming conventions:

 

License Identifier: “Python-2.0”

Full Name: “Python Software Foundation License v2”

“Official” License text is obtained from: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/PythonSoftFoundation

 

This will cover us in the vast majority of cases.

 

Tom

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850

 



This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController.


SPDX - Important Note

Philip Odence
 

You should consider signing up for one or more of the team mailing lists. Going forward we will be limiting the traffic on the SPDX list to summaries of the General Meetings and other high level topics. If you wish to be involved in the details of the team work, you should sign up for the appropriate team list.
 


Update on spdx subscriber numbers

Martin Michlmayr
 

One of my ongoing action items is:
| MartinM- Report back on # of people on respective mailing lists. DONE, BUT LET'S KEEP UPDATING

Here's an update:

spdx: 95
spdx-biz: 11
spxd-legal: 17
spdx-tech: 16

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


SPDX General Meeting Minutes

Philip Odence
 

Administrative

  • Attendance - 13
  • Minutes from 27 Jan meeting approved

Technical Team Report

  • Gary/Peter created punchlist of key issues that need to be addressed before beta.
    • Finalize RDF/XML
    • Clean up Grammer
    • Mesh spreadsheet license list, on-line list and RDF
  • Kate drafted spreadsheet view of SPDX file which Gary is using as basis for translation tools. Will circulate.
  • Seem to be on schedule genearlly

Business Team Report

  • Beta program
    • Good briefing meeting with 4 candidates. Following up wth two more.
    • Need coordinator volunteers
  • Starting to address need for end user content developed (doc, training, etc.).
  • Next issue in the queue is defining the process to add a license to the standard list.

Legal Team Report

  • Section 5.3 revision is mostly settled. Some final tweaking of field names was the last issue.
  • Karen and Rockett are updating LF Member Counsel with the message "it's time" to pay attention and weigh in.
  • In process of making recommendations for default license for SPDX data in a file and for SPDX tool licensing.

Cross Functional Issues

  • Tech and Biz teams will meet face to face at Linux Collab Summit (Tech pm 4/7, Biz am 4/8)
  • Agreed that SPDX general list should not be for extended discussions, which should be directed to respective team lists.

Action Items

  • Kate/Kim- Draft example for LF Member Counsel; include XML and spreadsheet. PENDING
  • MichaelH/Rockett- Write up and share postion on "reporting" vs. "interpreting. PENDING
  • MartinM- Report back on # of people on respective mailing lists. DONE, BUT LET'S KEEP UPDATING
  • Kim/Kate- Provide PhilK with paragraph descriptions of Collab Summit sessions by 2/17


Attendees

  • Kate Stewart, Canonical
  • Phil Odence, Black Duck Software
  • Kirsten Newcomer, Black Duck Software
  • Kim Weins, OpenLogic
  • Peter Williams, OpenLogic
  • Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic
  • Phil Koltun, Linux Foundation
  • Gary O'Neall, Source Auditor
  • Michael Herzog, nexB
  • Pierre Lapointe, nexB
  • Mark Gisi, Wind River
  • Tom Incorvia, Microfocus
  • Karen Copenhaver, Linux Foundation


Agenda for today's SPDX General Meeting

Philip Odence
 

Meeting Time: Feb 10, 8am PST / 10 am CST / 11am EST / 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:
I've been including this only for attendance purposes, but the size of the calls has been such that we can do it the ol' fashioned way.
 
Administrative Agenda
Attendance

Technical Team Report - Kate

Business Team Report - Kim/JohnE

Legal Team Report - Rockett/Karen

Cross Functional Issues - Phil
Prep for Collaboration Summit
Discussion on general list


Action Items

Most of the action items belong with the Teams. So, in addition to statusing, we will dispatch them to the respective teams and will not continue to track in this meeting. Action items for this meeting will be cross functional.
• Kate/Kim- Draft example for LF Member Counsel; include XML and spreadsheet. PENDING
• MichaelH/Rockett- Write up and share postion on "reporting" vs. "interpreting. PENDING
• MartinM- Report back on # of people on respective mailing lists. DONE, BUT LET'S KEEP UPDATING


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: Purpose of licensing info

kate.stewart@...
 

"LicenseInfoInFile" removes the ambiguity, so going with that seems reasonable.

Kate


--- On Tue, 2/8/11, Philip Odence <podence@...> wrote:

From: Philip Odence <podence@...>
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info
To: "Peter Williams" <peter.williams@...>
Cc: "Kate Stewart" <kate.stewart@...>, "spdx-legal@..." <spdx-legal@...>, "spdx@..." <spdx@...>, "Esteban Rockett" <mgia3940@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 5:05 PM

Bear in mind that "LicenseInformation" is the Tag which is a short form of the full name, "License Information in File." This longer name was roundly supported by folks on the last Legal Team call, precisely I think, because it was unambiguous. I frankly am not sure of the limitations on Tag (or how Tag is used) but I would be in favor of "LicenseInformationinFile" or "LicenseInfoinFile".


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

On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM,  <kate.stewart@...> wrote:
  Can I suggest LicenseSeen  rather than LicenseInformation,  as
the name for that field?   Information could get us back into those
ambiguous name discussions for someone seeing this for the first
time - using Seen might make it a bit more explicit that this is what
was seen in the file for those not doing a detailed reading of the
spec.  ;)

I don't love "LicenseSeen" but i agree that "LicenseInformation" a bit
too ambiguous.

  In the case when there is a fragement or some non-standardized
license,  the references in the non-standard-license should be
made with the same syntax, specifically "LICENSE"-N,

We should either stick to one format or not specific the format of
these ids at all.  I lean toward just saying licenses have an id
string and leaving it to the implementations to decide what those ids
look like.  It is likely that specifying the shape of license ids will
make it more difficult to implement rdf/xml (or any other rdf format)
file generators.

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


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Philip Odence
 

Bear in mind that "LicenseInformation" is the Tag which is a short form of the full name, "License Information in File." This longer name was roundly supported by folks on the last Legal Team call, precisely I think, because it was unambiguous. I frankly am not sure of the limitations on Tag (or how Tag is used) but I would be in favor of "LicenseInformationinFile" or "LicenseInfoinFile".


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

On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM,  <kate.stewart@...> wrote:
  Can I suggest LicenseSeen  rather than LicenseInformation,  as
the name for that field?   Information could get us back into those
ambiguous name discussions for someone seeing this for the first
time - using Seen might make it a bit more explicit that this is what
was seen in the file for those not doing a detailed reading of the
spec.  ;)

I don't love "LicenseSeen" but i agree that "LicenseInformation" a bit
too ambiguous.

  In the case when there is a fragement or some non-standardized
license,  the references in the non-standard-license should be
made with the same syntax, specifically "LICENSE"-N,

We should either stick to one format or not specific the format of
these ids at all.  I lean toward just saying licenses have an id
string and leaving it to the implementations to decide what those ids
look like.  It is likely that specifying the shape of license ids will
make it more difficult to implement rdf/xml (or any other rdf format)
file generators.

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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM, <kate.stewart@...> wrote:
  Can I suggest LicenseSeen  rather than LicenseInformation,  as
the name for that field?   Information could get us back into those
ambiguous name discussions for someone seeing this for the first
time - using Seen might make it a bit more explicit that this is what
was seen in the file for those not doing a detailed reading of the
spec.  ;)
I don't love "LicenseSeen" but i agree that "LicenseInformation" a bit
too ambiguous.

  In the case when there is a fragement or some non-standardized
license,  the references in the non-standard-license should be
made with the same syntax, specifically "LICENSE"-N,
We should either stick to one format or not specific the format of
these ids at all. I lean toward just saying licenses have an id
string and leaving it to the implementations to decide what those ids
look like. It is likely that specifying the shape of license ids will
make it more difficult to implement rdf/xml (or any other rdf format)
file generators.

Peter
openlogic.com


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...> wrote:

Below please find the revised Section 5.3 text discussed during our
last meeting, for your comment.
I think Package should have an optional concluded licensing field also.

5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseConcluded:"
Given that the value of this property is potentially a disjunctive set
of licenses (or license sets) would "Licensing" be better than
"License" in the name?

Also, -- and this one is just a matter of curiosity -- why was that
word order chosen? "ConcludedLicense" seems like a more idiomatic
formulation.

Peter

PS: I missed the last call so i apologize if these issues where covered there.


Re: Purpose of licensing info

kate.stewart@...
 

Hi Rockett,
Thanks for pulling this all together, and summarizing. :) Sorry I couldn't be on the last call. In reading through the summary couple of thoughts occurred.

Can I suggest LicenseSeen rather than LicenseInformation, as the name for that field? Information could get us back into those ambiguous name discussions for someone seeing this for the first time - using Seen might make it a bit more explicit that this is what was seen in the file for those not doing a detailed reading of the spec. ;)

In the case when there is a fragement or some non-standardized license, the references in the non-standard-license should be made with the same syntax, specifically "LICENSE"-N, Introducing new varients of keywords in the Non Standard License section, will cause complications I think, and lead to redundancy - ie. do I use "FullLicense-1" and "FullLicenseInformation-1" to refer to same license or not, are there multiple entries, etc.

Thanks, Kate

--- On Mon, 2/7/11, Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...> wrote:

From: Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info
To: spdx@...
Date: Monday, February 7, 2011, 11:31 AM
SPDX Legal Workstream Members:

Below please find the revised Section 5.3 text discussed
during our last meeting, for your comment.

I will post the same to Bugzilla later today.

Many thanks,

Rockett

***

Proposal:  Section 5.3 (License(s)) of the SPDX
Specification will become 3 fields:


5.3a Concluded License(s)

5.3a.1 Purpose:  This field contains the license the
reviewer has concluded as governing the file, if it can be
determined.  The options to populate this field are
limited to: (a) the SPDX standardized license short form
identifier; this should be used when the concluded license
is on the SPDX standardized license short list; (b) a
verbatim copy of the concluded license when the concluded
license is not on the SPDX standardized license short list
(“non-standard license”); (c) “UNDETERMINED”; this
should be used (i) if the reviewer has attempted to but
cannot reach a reasonable objective determination of the
concluded license, or (ii) if the reviewer is uncomfortable
concluding a license, despite some license information being
available; or (d) left blank; this should be used if the
reviewer has made no attempt to arrive at a concluded
license.  With respect to “a” and “b” above, if
there is more than one concluded license, all should be
recited.  If the recipient has a choice of multiple
licenses, then each of the choices should be recited as a
"disjunctive" license.  With respect to “c”, a
written explanation must be provided in the License Comments
field below.  Lastly, if the Conclude License(s)
conflicts with the License Information in File, a written
explanation must be provided in the License Comments field
below.

5.3a.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to have the
reviewer analyze the License Information in File and other
objective information, e.g., “COPYING FILE”, etc.,
together with the results from any scanning tools, to arrive
at a reasonably objective conclusion as to what license is
governing the file.

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

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 | UNDETERMINED | (left blank)

5.3a.7 Example:

LicenseConcluded: GPL-2.0



5.3b License Information in File

5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license information
actually recited in the file, if any.  Any license
information not actually in the file, e.g., “COPYING
FILE”, etc., should not be reflected in this field. 
This information is most commonly found in the header of the
file, although it may be in other areas of the actual
file.  The options to populate this field are limited
to: (a) the SPDX standardized license short form identifier;
this should be used when the license is on the SPDX
standardized license short list and has no ambiguous or
superfluous text; (b) a verbatim copy of the license
information the file when the license information in the
file is not on the SPDX standardized license short list
(“non-standard license”); (c) “NONE”; this should be
used if the actual file contains no license information; or
(d) left blank; this should be used if the reviewer has not
examined the contents of the actual files.  With
respect to “a” and “b” above, if license information
for more than one license is recited in the file, all should
be reflected in this field.  If the license information
offers the recipient a choice of licenses, then each of the
choices should be recited as a "disjunctive" licenses.

5.ba.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide the
reader with the license information actually in the file, as
compared to the Concluded License field.

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

5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseInformation:"

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> | "FullLicenseInformation"-N | NONE | (left blank)

5.3b.7 Example:

LicenseInformation: GPL-2.0

LicenseInformation: FullLicenseInformation



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 License
Information in File, such rationale must be recited by the
reviewer in this field.  This field is also where an
explanation must be recited if the reviewer placed
“UNDETERMINED” as the Conclude License(s).

5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide the
reader with a detailed explanation of how the Concluded
License(s) was determined if it does not match the License
Information in File, is marked “UNDETERMINED”, or other
helpful information for the reader relevant to determining
the license of the file.

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.  This information was found in the
COPYING.txt file in the xyz directory. </text>

***


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

1261 - 1280 of 1598