Date   

Re: interesting variant of the GPL

Kim Weins
 

Interesting. This would get handled as a "non-standard" license for now.

Kim

On Fri 1/28/11 5:43 AM, "D M German" <dmg@...> wrote:



Armijn called my attention to the following license (part of Amarok):
Notice how the "upgrade" option allows for licenses other than the FSF
approved,

hence this file is not GPLv2+ only, but GPLv2+(according to FSF and KDE)


* 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 of the License, or (at your option) version 3
or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor
approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined in
Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license.
*





--
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


interesting variant of the GPL

dmg
 

Armijn called my attention to the following license (part of Amarok):
Notice how the "upgrade" option allows for licenses other than the FSF
approved,

hence this file is not GPLv2+ only, but GPLv2+(according to FSF and KDE)


* 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 of the License, or (at your option) version 3 or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined in Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license. *





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


FYI: Invitation: SPDX Beta Orientation Call

Kim Weins
 

Hi everyone!
 
I sent the following invite to all of the people that have expressed an interest in being a Beta site.  All SPDX members are welcome to attend as well.  This orientation will be held during the normal business call time slot on Feb 3rd.

If you know of other potential beta sites, please let me know and feel free to invite them to this meeting.  Let me know if you have any more questions.

Kim



------ Forwarded Message
From: Kim Weins <kim.weins@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:41:21 -0700
To: <scott.lamons@...>, <Mark.Gisi@...>, <brad_dixon@...>, <mgia3940@...>, <tcallawa@...>, <Soeren_Rabenstein@...>, <guillaume.rousseau@...>
Conversation: Invitation: SPDX Beta Orientation Call
Subject: Invitation: SPDX Beta Orientation Call

Hello to all of our SPDX Beta Sites!

You are invited to attend a SPDX Beta Orientation call on Thursday Feb 3rd, 11am ET/8am PT.
 
The call and web meeting (details below) will cover an overview of SPDX and the details of the Beta Program, including:
 
-What we ask of Beta participants
-What support you will receive from SPDX
-Tools
-Schedules and Timing
 
If you are planning to participate in the Beta Program, we would encourage you to invite any other colleagues from your company that would be involved in the Beta testing -- including technical and/or legal resources.  If you know which trading partner (supplier or customer) you will be working with for the Beta program, please invite them to this meeting as well.
 
Please RSVP to Kim Weins, Beta Program Manager.  Kim.weins@....  If you are not able to make this time, please let me know and we can arrange another time for your orientation.
 
Regards
Kim Weins and the SPDX Team
 
 
Call Details
ID: 2404502
 
Dial in:
US 866-740-1260
Find Int’l numbers at  http://www.readytalk.com/support/international-numbers.php
 
Web meeting
www.readytalk.com <http://www.readytalk.com>
ID: 2404502

------ End of Forwarded Message


Agenda for Thursday's SPDX General Meeting

Philip Odence
 

Meeting Time: January 27, 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:
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
Beta program update

Legal Team Report - Rockett/Karen
File license fields
DEP5 license names

Cross Functional Issues - Phil


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
• Jilayne- Add column to license list showing Deb5 short names for comparison.




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: new version of License List uploaded

Tom Incorvia
 

Perhaps we stick with the version of MIT that is listed at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php as a way to include this license in the standard list -- it is too commonly used to exclude. To work with the variations, we treat it like the BSD variants where there must be an exact match other than Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>. Tom

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfontana@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:29 PM
To: Tom Incorvia
Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; Kim Weins; SPDX
Subject: Re: new version of License List uploaded

Delurking ...

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:07:02PM -0800, Tom Incorvia wrote:
- Regarding the MIT license.  This is a VERY well-established license,
#4 on the Black Duck site, is listed in expected form the OSI site, etc.  I
have not seen variants other than the copyright year and copyright holders
template holders.  I strongly recommend that we maintain the MIT license
without associating it with Expat.   No opinion on whether to list Expat or not
– I have not used it, but am in the commercial world
This is rather contrary to our experiences at Red Hat. We've
encountered fascinatingly numerous language variants on the
MIT/X11/Expat license family in the wild (though you might want to
argue that these shouldn't be treated as one family). I once started
to make an effort to catalogue all the different variants you find in
just one project (Kerberos) and gave up (maybe out of boredom, but
still...). Tom Callaway has probably made the most careful attempt to
collect the various licenses that seem to often be labelled "MIT". (No
question that the direction is towards standardization on the version
that OSI happens to list as a template, or something close to that.)
Some of the variants one finds in this license family are arguably
legally significant. For what it's worth, Red Hat and Fedora use the
"MIT" label to describe all of the various licenses in this family in
package metadata.

I would assume that Black Duck listing the MIT license as #4 involves
to at least some degree collecting a bunch of variants.

- Regarding Perl – since there is not a Perl license or Perl license
stack (like Python), I suggest that we not list Perl as a license.
I wonder if the value in doing so lies in the fact that Perl modules
are commonly licensed as "under the same terms as Perl itself", which
most often probably means (Artistic 1.0 or GPL) but is sometimes
unclear.

- I am not familiar with the general use of the OpenSSL exception, but
it is certainly distinct from any exceptions that we currently have listed. 
Here is a reference from Debian Legal on this exception.  Does anyone have
experience with this exception and know if the text is consistent?
We have experience with it. Not sure there is one canonical version
but I think the one in that debian-legal posting is the one that the
FSF recommended at one time. I believe that there is a different
version that was updated for GPLv3, but I may be misremembering. I
seem to remember writing my own version (while at Red Hat) at one
point.

Conceptually, the OpenSSL exception is one of a class of GPL linking
exceptions.

- Anyone else familiar with GPL Font – not me? 
The GPL font exception, which originates with the FSF, is pretty well
known. We've used and encountered it in certain forms at Red Hat. It
is possible the FSF has an updated version for GPLv3, or will someday.

- Richard


This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController - www.MailController.altohiway.com


Re: new version of License List uploaded

Richard Fontana
 

Delurking ...

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:07:02PM -0800, Tom Incorvia wrote:
- Regarding the MIT license.  This is a VERY well-established license,
#4 on the Black Duck site, is listed in expected form the OSI site, etc.  I
have not seen variants other than the copyright year and copyright holders
template holders.  I strongly recommend that we maintain the MIT license
without associating it with Expat.   No opinion on whether to list Expat or not
– I have not used it, but am in the commercial world
This is rather contrary to our experiences at Red Hat. We've
encountered fascinatingly numerous language variants on the
MIT/X11/Expat license family in the wild (though you might want to
argue that these shouldn't be treated as one family). I once started
to make an effort to catalogue all the different variants you find in
just one project (Kerberos) and gave up (maybe out of boredom, but
still...). Tom Callaway has probably made the most careful attempt to
collect the various licenses that seem to often be labelled "MIT". (No
question that the direction is towards standardization on the version
that OSI happens to list as a template, or something close to that.)
Some of the variants one finds in this license family are arguably
legally significant. For what it's worth, Red Hat and Fedora use the
"MIT" label to describe all of the various licenses in this family in
package metadata.

I would assume that Black Duck listing the MIT license as #4 involves
to at least some degree collecting a bunch of variants.

- Regarding Perl – since there is not a Perl license or Perl license
stack (like Python), I suggest that we not list Perl as a license.
I wonder if the value in doing so lies in the fact that Perl modules
are commonly licensed as "under the same terms as Perl itself", which
most often probably means (Artistic 1.0 or GPL) but is sometimes
unclear.

- I am not familiar with the general use of the OpenSSL exception, but
it is certainly distinct from any exceptions that we currently have listed. 
Here is a reference from Debian Legal on this exception.  Does anyone have
experience with this exception and know if the text is consistent?
We have experience with it. Not sure there is one canonical version
but I think the one in that debian-legal posting is the one that the
FSF recommended at one time. I believe that there is a different
version that was updated for GPLv3, but I may be misremembering. I
seem to remember writing my own version (while at Red Hat) at one
point.

Conceptually, the OpenSSL exception is one of a class of GPL linking
exceptions.

- Anyone else familiar with GPL Font – not me? 
The GPL font exception, which originates with the FSF, is pretty well
known. We've used and encountered it in certain forms at Red Hat. It
is possible the FSF has an updated version for GPLv3, or will someday.

- Richard


Re: new version of License List uploaded

Tom Incorvia
 

-          Regarding the MIT license.  This is a VERY well-established license, #4 on the Black Duck site, is listed in expected form the OSI site, etc.  I have not seen variants other than the copyright year and copyright holders template holders.  I strongly recommend that we maintain the MIT license without associating it with Expat.   No opinion on whether to list Expat or not – I have not used it, but am in the commercial world

 

-          Regarding Perl – since there is not a Perl license or Perl license stack (like Python), I suggest that we not list Perl as a license.

 

-          I am not familiar with the general use of the OpenSSL exception, but it is certainly distinct from any exceptions that we currently have listed.  Here is a reference from Debian Legal on this exception.  Does anyone have experience with this exception and know if the text is consistent?

 

-          Anyone else familiar with GPL Font – not me? 

 

Tom Incorvia

tom.incorvia@...

Direct:  (512) 340-1336

Mobile: (408) 499 6850

 

From: Jilayne Lovejoy [mailto:Jlovejoy@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:34 PM
To: Tom Incorvia; Kim Weins; SPDX
Subject: RE: new version of License List uploaded

 

Thanks, Tom.  Do you (or anyone on the list) have any thoughts on the 3 items highlighted in yellow below?

 

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


From: Tom Incorvia [mailto:tom.incorvia@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Kim Weins; Jilayne Lovejoy; SPDX
Subject: RE: new version of License List uploaded

 

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.


Re: new version of License List uploaded

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

Thanks, Tom.  Do you (or anyone on the list) have any thoughts on the 3 items highlighted in yellow below?

 

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


From: Tom Incorvia [mailto:tom.incorvia@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Kim Weins; Jilayne Lovejoy; SPDX
Subject: RE: new version of License List uploaded

 

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.


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.


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


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


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


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
 

 
 


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: 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 .


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


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


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


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


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


1301 - 1320 of 1608