Hope to see you in 45 minutes. For agenda, we will cover follow up from
some of the Collab Summit items plus a few miscellaneous items for Beta.

Kim


------ 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

** http://www.linuxtag.org/2011/en/program/free-conference/all-speakers/details.html?talkid=621 **

Hi,

some of the people within the various Linux distributions have been in contact with the aim of trying to improve collaboration on some issues of software licensing - an area which hasn't seen much collaboration up to now.

Whereas it can be understood that each distribution will make certain decisions relating to choice of 'good' and 'bad' licenses and the interpretation of those licenses and how those licenses interact with other licenses, there is certainly scope for collaboration in other areas.

For example, the discussions on the SPDX mailing list combined with cross distribution collaboration in another area (http://distributions.freedesktop.org/wiki/AppStream) encouraged us to see if we could e.g. agree on short names for licenses (GPLv2, GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1+ etc). This may sound quite trivial but it is a substantial step forward, particularly for downstream users of the distributions.

The "Cross Distribution Licensing Summit" on Wednesday May 11th 2011 10:00 - 13:00 is intended to have a workshop type character. We'll propose a loose program to keep discussions on track but hope that the proposed discursive nature of the meeting will lead to more concrete understanding of current practises of the various distributions and where we can collaborate.

I hope that the discussion will also be interesting to industry members in general, as well as to those with interest in SPDX. Therefore, if you are in Berlin/at LinuxTag on the 2011-05-11, why not drop in to Messehalle Regensburg between 10:00 and 13:00 and get involved in the discussions! If you're interested, I'd appreciate if you could send me a quick mail (cfarrell@...) just so I can get an idea of numbers/what distributions/what companies etc.

** http://www.linuxtag.org/2011/en/program/free-conference/all-speakers/details.html?talkid=621 **

Above is the official URL of the workshop - please don't be put off by its "presentation" appearance - as mentioned above we will possibly showcase some technologies used by the various distributions already to help with licensing, but it is not intended to be a three hour presentation.

Ciaran

--

Ciaran Farrell __o

cfarrell@... _`\<,_

Phone: +49 (0)911 74053 262 (_)/ (_)

SUSE Linux Products GmbH,

GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409, Nuremberg, Germany

/ˈkiː.ræn/

As I expect most of you know, XML-based schema have been created for
hundreds of different information domains, from sports scores (SportsXML)
to advertising copy (AdXML) to human resources (HRXML) data to financial
data (XBRL), and on and on.

The scope of the attached RFP for another client of mine describes a
project that demonstrates how XML might be useful in the licensing domain,
and the ambitious schedule illustrates how manageable such a project can
be. Because XML is so widely used, schema and tools based on XML are
readily understood and used by a broad range of users.

As a result, I thought you might find it interesting and provocative.

Best,

Andy

(See attached file: OSCRE LSDP Call for Tech 31 Mar 11.pdf)

---

Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)

Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad Street, Boston, MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax: (617) 350-6878. This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at (617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic mail. Please expunge this communication without making any copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

Agenda will be :
Discuss agenda for F2F next week
Review draft of training materials

Kim



------ Original Appointment

From: kim.weins@...

When: 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM March 31, 2011
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 outreach

------ End Of Original Appointment

Philip Odence twisted the bytes to say:


Philip> Yes, and let's not forget this same point when we are talking about the process of adding new license to the standard list. The discussion is never
Philip> whether the license can be included in an SPDX file—it always can be—the only issue from the SPDX file creator's perspective is whether it matches a
Philip> license on the standard list with a predefined short name, or whether they have to go the one extra step of including the license text in Section 4.
Philip> Licensing Info and create their own local short name.

One interesting aspect of licenses that are "almost" a match is that, if
they are only listed as "unknown", the knowledge/analysis performed by
the SPDX-file's author might be lost (why is such license unknown).

Perhaps a "comment" field attached to any attribute (file, package, etc)
that can have a license would be very useful to include a rational.

--dmg


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

These variant licenses would simply end up needing to be added as a “nonstandard” license, meaning the SPDX generator would not be able to use the standardized SPDX license list shortname for that license, but it wouldn’t (shouldn’t) be tagged as unknown in such a case.


On 3/23/11 10:54 AM, "dmg" <dmg@...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...> wrote:

I believe we already discussed this to some degree and decided that we would not enter the arena of word equivalents with the exception of spelling variations for known American-British English.  Although there are certainly plenty of words that seem “safe” to equate, that begins to feel like a slippery slope in terms of the potential for different meanings or the license author’s intent getting altered.  More specifically, many licenses have definitions for such words.  Past and present tense can also be tricky, both from deciding how and when it’s okay to use either tense.  All in all, I think it’s best to take a very conservative approach to what we will “replace” in terms of templatizing the licenses.  We can always expand, but it would be very hard to roll it back later on.  Just my two cents.

I agree. I wonder if a solution is to allow the specification of "variant" of a license. Perhaps a way to say: the closest license is this one, with a text similarity metric of X, and where the differences are  such and such. Otherwise a lot of BSD and MIT licensed files will be listed as unknown/other.


--dmg
 

Certainly the BSD and Apache 1.1 licenses are problematic, because they are often verbatim with the exception of the author’s name in the third clause (BSD) and the third, fourth, and fifth clause (Apache 1.1) as well as the disclaimer sections for both.  We are working through how/where to capture this, as well as copyright notices in general, though.

Jilayne Lovejoy |  Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545  |  phone
720 240 4556  |  fax
1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Another update on the mailing list numbers:

spdx: 98
spdz-biz: 17
spdx-legal: 23
spdx-tech: 21

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

Yes! We are closely following evolution of the SPDX standard. We will eventually align FOSSology to adopt the standard.

Mary


Mary Laser
The FOSSology Project
http://fossology.org

Hi all

I'm interested in using FOSSology and the SPDX standard for future projects.
It would be great to have at least one well supported open source software
solution like FOSSology which is using the SPDX standard. This will help all
of us to be license compliant and economic whenever we use open source
software.

However, SPDX is still in definition phase and it probably does not fit
perfectly to FOSSology.
The license meta data is a very important thing required to automate license
analysis and that's the place where I've identified a mismatch, the license
short name or license identifier.

FOSSology has some very nice metadata for each license, e.g.
Date: 2004-01-01 00:00:00
URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
shortname: ASL v2.0
fullname: Apache Software License v2.0
OSIapproved: Yes
FSFfree: Yes
GPLv2compatible: No
GPLv3compatible: Yes
copyleft: No
notes: ....
for further details see
http://fossology.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/fossology/trunk/fossology/agents
/license_files/Apachev2.0.meta?revision=HEAD&view=markup

SPDX is using its own license identifier:
Full name of License: Apache License 2.0
License Identifier: Apache-2
Source/URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Notes: This version was released: January 2004, This license is OSI
certified
for further details see
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list

Are there any plans to align these identifiers?
Does somebody know some other standards used for license meta data?

-roger

--
--dmg

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

I believe we already discussed this to some degree and decided that we would not enter the arena of word equivalents with the exception of spelling variations for known American-British English.  Although there are certainly plenty of words that seem “safe” to equate, that begins to feel like a slippery slope in terms of the potential for different meanings or the license author’s intent getting altered.  More specifically, many licenses have definitions for such words.  Past and present tense can also be tricky, both from deciding how and when it’s okay to use either tense.  All in all, I think it’s best to take a very conservative approach to what we will “replace” in terms of templatizing the licenses.  We can always expand, but it would be very hard to roll it back later on.  Just my two cents.

Certainly the BSD and Apache 1.1 licenses are problematic, because they are often verbatim with the exception of the author’s name in the third clause (BSD) and the third, fourth, and fifth clause (Apache 1.1) as well as the disclaimer sections for both.  We are working through how/where to capture this, as well as copyright notices in general, though.



Jilayne


On 3/23/11 10:11 AM, "Kate Stewart" <kate.stewart@...> wrote:

Thanks Daniel,

    Will look into adding this after we can get the guidance from the lawyers as to what varients are equivalent.  ;)   

Kate


--- On Wed, 3/23/11, dmg <dmg@...> wrote:

From: dmg <dmg@...>
Subject: Re: Today's Agenda Legal WorkStream
To: "Esteban Rockett" <mgia3940@...>
Cc: spdx-legal@..., spdx@...
Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 9:48 AM



On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@... </mc/compose?to=mgia3940@...> > wrote:

Agenda Legal WorkStream

(4) Review and Discuss --- Guidelines for "Templatizing" licenses

Please goto:  http://spdx.org/wiki/guidelines-templatizing-licenses

I think it is going in the right direction. You should look at the way Ninka normalizes test  for in-file licenses (BSD, MIT, etc).
For the BSD and MIT variants the problems are not only spelling, but in some cases, variants in grammar: past vs present
tense, use of word "software", "product", "program", "library" in the same place.

---

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

Jilayne Lovejoy |  Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545  |  phone
720 240 4556  |  fax
1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021

--
--dmg

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

We got an update on the training materials and finished laying out the process to add a new license.  See minutes link below.

http://www.spdx.org/wiki/business-team-meeting-agendaminutes-20110317

Kim


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