Date   

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



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: 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: 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


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: 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


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: 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: 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: Purpose of licensing info

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

It seems like there are three possible scenarios for this field:

"I looked and found ____" = field propagated
"I looked and didn't find anything" = NotSpecified
"I didn't even look" = ? field left blank ?

I think the purpose should include the third scenario as well. "None" is confusing, as it is too similar to "NotSpecified" (not sure if that was the suggestion in any case)

5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains license information explicitly found in the file. If no license information is found it should be denoted as "NotSpecified". If the file was not investigated, then this field should be left blank. This information could be represented using standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms. If the detected license information is not one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full text of the information found in the file included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one piece of license information is detected in the file, then each should be listed.

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:41 AM
To: Peter Williams
Cc: spdx@...
Subject: RE: Purpose of licensing info

None would imply that one looked and none was found.

Absence of the field would not imply whether there was or was not any license information in the file.

For example, if someone wanted to use the SPDX format to represent the information for their project, they might manually create the data. They won't necessarily want to take the trouble to indicate whether there was information in each file or not. The asserted license field would be enough for their purpose. Others might prefer that they added information about what was explicitly in the file. Whether the developer wanted to do that extra work ought to be up to them.

-- Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Peter Williams
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 10:36 AM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info

Given that the field is optional do we need a "none" value? Wouldn't
the absence of this field mean "none".

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
<scott.k.peterson@...> wrote:
I have a revision to my proposal below. The file format should permit uses where no assertion about what licensing information is or is not explicitly present in the file. In those cases the field could be omitted. If one want to represent the fact the file was scanned for license information and none was found, the file could have a value of "NoneSpecified".

Thus the change to what I proposed below:

5.3b.3 Cardinality:  Optional, zero or many.


-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 9:46 AM
To: spdx@...
Subject: RE: Purpose of licensing info

With the intent that I heard on the phone this morning, calling the second license field "Detected License" or "Declared License" will confuse people as to the intended meaning of the information in this field. This field is representing information that may be useful in determining the applicable license terms. The field itself is not necessarily representing a license.

Thus I propose modifying 5.3b as follows:

5.3b Detected License Information

5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains license information explicitly found in the file. If no license information is found it should be denoted as "NotSpecified". This information could be represented using standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms.  If the detected license information is not one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full text of the information found in the file included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one piece of license information is detected in the file, then each should be listed.

5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to record the information that is explicitly present in the file that might be relevant to determination of the terms under which the file is licensed.

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

5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseInfo:"

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 Examples:
LicenseInfo: GPL-2.0
LicenseInfo: FullLicense-456
LicenseInfo: FullLicense-457

Where FullLicense-456 is "This file is licensed under the same terms as Perl."
where FullLicense-457 is "For license terms, see the file LICENSE."

-- Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of kate.stewart@...
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:47 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info

Based on discussions on the SPDX call today, I think we are closing in on the following proposal for the file level to address the concerns raised by Open Logic.

There will be a special call tomorrow at 9am EST to get resolution on this issue.  Please let Esteban Rockett or myself know,  off-list, if you are interested in participating and were not in the legal call yesterday or the coordination call today.

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

5.3a Asserted License

5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license governing the file if it can be determined.  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 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 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.

5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform method to refer to the license that is determined 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.

5.3a.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one.

5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:"

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)

5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license governing the file if it is known.  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 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 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 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 making the asserted license for a file, if the asserted license does not match the detected license that the person creating the SPDX file wants to share with the reviewers.

5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical explanation of how the asserted license was determined if it does not match the detected license.

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 asserted license was taken from the package level that the file was included in.  </text>

The above is preliminary at this point, so needs some polishing.  I've entered it in bugzilla (http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=625), so after the discussion tomorrow, feel free to subscribe, and make improvements there.

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


new version of License List uploaded

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

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

 

OpenLogic, Inc.

Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021

 


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Tom Incorvia
 

Agree.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kim Weins
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 11:01 AM
To: Peter Williams; SPDX
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info

I vote for best effort of the producer


On Fri 1/14/11 9:51 AM, "Peter Williams" <peter.williams@...>
wrote:

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
<scott.k.peterson@...> wrote:

(3)

In the file:

³See COPYING² [where the COPYING file is a copy of the GPL]

Metadata:

asserted license: GPL-2.0

license information in file: ³See COPYING²
Are we going to define the mechanism for deciding if a bit of text
that is not a standard header is a licensing statement? Or is it just
the best effort of the producer?

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


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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Kim Weins
 

I vote for best effort of the producer


On Fri 1/14/11 9:51 AM, "Peter Williams" <peter.williams@...>
wrote:

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
<scott.k.peterson@...> wrote:

(3)

In the file:

³See COPYING² [where the COPYING file is a copy of the GPL]

Metadata:

asserted license: GPL-2.0

license information in file: ³See COPYING²
Are we going to define the mechanism for deciding if a bit of text
that is not a standard header is a licensing statement? Or is it just
the best effort of the producer?

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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:11 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]

Metadata:

asserted license: GPL-2.0

license information in file: “See COPYING”
Are we going to define the mechanism for deciding if a bit of text
that is not a standard header is a licensing statement? Or is it just
the best effort of the producer?

Peter


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
 

Now that I understand the interest in representing material that was explicitly found in the file, let me check my understanding about what specifically is expected to be recorded.

 

(1)

In the file:

[standard GPLv2+ header]

Metadata:

asserted license: GPL-2.0+

license information in file: GPL-2.0+

 

(2)

In the file:

“Licensed under GPL version 2 or any later version”

Metadata:

asserted license: GPL-2.0+

license information in file: “Licensed under GPL version 2 or any later version”

 

(3)

In the file:

“See COPYING” [where the COPYING file is a copy of the GPL]

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

 


Seen in file license recognition

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

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


shortnames for license information

Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
 

The discussion of "license information" (as contrasted with "licenses") suggests possible value in slightly generalizing the list of standard licenses to a list of standards shortnames.

From the spreadsheet, I see that a shortname may or may not have a corresponding standard header.

One could also add shortnames that did have a corresponding standard header ("licensed under the same terms as Perl", but that did not have a corresponding license text.

-- Scott


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
 

"License Information in File"

 

Yes, that is better. And, that avoids “detected”. From the phone call this morning, I understand people read different things into that word.

 

-- Scott

 

From: Philip Odence [mailto:podence@...]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 10:29 AM
To: Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
Cc: spdx@...
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info

 

This all looks very good Scott. I think naming is really important. I suggest being even more explicit with the name of the field to avoid confusion all together and call it: "License Information in File"

 

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 Jan 14, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) wrote:



With the intent that I heard on the phone this morning, calling the second license field "Detected License" or "Declared License" will confuse people as to the intended meaning of the information in this field. This field is representing information that may be useful in determining the applicable license terms. The field itself is not necessarily representing a license.

Thus I propose modifying 5.3b as follows:

5.3b Detected License Information

5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains license information explicitly found in the file. If no license information is found it should be denoted as “NotSpecified”. This information could be represented using standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms.  If the detected license information is not one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full text of the information found in the file included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one piece of license information is detected in the file, then each should be listed.

5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to record the information that is explicitly present in the file that might be relevant to determination of the terms under which the file is licensed.

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

5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseInfo:"

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 Examples:
LicenseInfo: GPL-2.0
LicenseInfo: FullLicense-456
LicenseInfo: FullLicense-457

Where FullLicense-456 is "This file is licensed under the same terms as Perl."
where FullLicense-457 is "For license terms, see the file LICENSE."

-- Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of kate.stewart@...
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:47 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info

Based on discussions on the SPDX call today, I think we are closing in on the following proposal for the file level to address the concerns raised by Open Logic.

There will be a special call tomorrow at 9am EST to get resolution on this issue.  Please let Esteban Rockett or myself know,  off-list, if you are interested in participating and were not in the legal call yesterday or the coordination call today.

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

5.3a Asserted License

5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license governing the file if it can be determined.  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 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 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.

5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform method to refer to the license that is determined 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.

5.3a.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one.

5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:"  

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)

5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license governing the file if it is known.  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 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 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 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 making the asserted license for a file, if the asserted license does not match the detected license that the person creating the SPDX file wants to share with the reviewers.   

5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical explanation of how the asserted license was determined if it does not match the detected license.  

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 asserted license was taken from the package level that the file was included in.  </text>

The above is preliminary at this point, so needs some polishing.  I've entered it in bugzilla (http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=625), so after the discussion tomorrow, feel free to subscribe, and make improvements there.   

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

 

1301 - 1320 of 1591