Date   

Minutes from Jan 13 SPDX General Meeting

Philip Odence
 

I've posted the minutes.

The Tech Team has put in place an instance of Bugzilla. We'll be using it to track all kinds of SPDX issues including licenses, documentation and website issues. So, you may want an account even if you are not involved in the details of drafting the spec. The product is "spdx" and under that are projects: spec, licenses, documentation, pretty printer, website. The signup process is typical and quick.

Next General Meeting is Jan 27.


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

Philip Odence
 

Soeren,
First, you inferred the issue correctly.
I was in the conversation and had exactly the same idea as you. I ended up never putting it out on the table because several of the participants in the discussion (who were from real end user companies) took the position that it was absolutely mandatory for them to know the license data contained in the file, even if it was thought or known to be erroneous. So, I concluded that two license fields were required.
There could still be an argument for adding your suggested field as a fourth; it would essentially be a standardized comment field. However I still think we'd need to free form comment field to capture unanticipated cases or other information deemed important by the author.
Phil


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 13, 2011, at 11:00 PM, <Soeren_Rabenstein@...> <Soeren_Rabenstein@...> wrote:

I am trying to understand the meaning and value of "detected" and/or
"declared" as distinguished from "your best guess", i.e., "asserted".
I don't know about this one.  Would this statement be representable in
a declared license file?  It requires multiple facts and deduction
[...]

I haven't been in the spdx-team from the beginning on, so I do not
exactly know what the original purpose of these two license declarations
is. But judging from daily experience I assume it is to cover the
situation where there is neither a license file nor any licensing
comments in the source code, however it is known from other sources
(e.g. community website) that the software is licensed under particular
terms.

In fact there might be multiple facts and deductions involved.

In order to avoid conflicting license tags in one spdx file, wouldn't it
be more viable to have only one license tag, but an additional tag
determining the source of that license information (maybe in categories
like "license file", "documentation". "website[URL]", etc)  ?

Cheers
Soeren



=====================================================================================================================================
This email and any attachments to it contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
is addressed.If you are not the intended recipient or receive it accidentally, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete
the message and any attachments from your computer system, and destroy all hard copies. If any, please be advised that any unauthorized
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is illegal and prohibited. Furthermore, any views
or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of ASUSTeK. Thank you for your cooperation.
=====================================================================================================================================

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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

kate.stewart@...
 

Hi Scott,
The meaning of the declared and detected at the package is different than what we've been discussing at the file level, and separation of the two different cases (package level vs. file level) is important and significant.

At the package level the intention of declared license, is to reflect the contents of what the package author believes the license is for the package (based on something like the LICENSE, COPYING file, etc.). The detected license field can create multiple instances, and is meant to simply records ALL the licenses (either detected directly or asserted at the file level).

If declared license is different from detected license(s) listed at the package level, its a signal to consider going down to the file level to understand the details - because there may be some areas that require legal judgement.

In terms of the example that you give at the file level, given the our current license list, and given the syntax proposed below, I'd recommend they be encoded as

"This file is licensed under the same terms as Perl."
LicenseAsserted: Fulllicense-1
LicenseDetected: Fulllicense-1
since LicenseAsserted matches LicenseDetected, a LicenseComment is not required.
Fulllicense-1 has the verbatim text above.
It is recorded as a non-standard license, since none of our short form templates or headers match this.

"For license terms, see the file LICENSE."
LicenseAsserted: ?? (see what is in the file LICENSE if it exists and either use a short form or full license, else Unknown)
LicenseDetected: Unknown
LicenseComment: <text> For license terms, see the file LICENSE </text>

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Kate

--- On Thu, 1/13/11, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) <scott.k.peterson@...> wrote:

From: Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) <scott.k.peterson@...>
Subject: RE: Purpose of licensing info
To: "Peter Williams" <peter.williams@...>, "kate.stewart@..." <kate.stewart@...>
Cc: "spdx@..." <spdx@...>
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 4:46 PM
Kate and Peter --

I am trying to understand the meaning and value of
"detected" and/or "declared" as distinguished from "your
best guess", i.e., "asserted".

What would be the value of the detected or declared field
for the two cases where the file included one of these
strings:

"This file is licensed under the same terms as Perl."

"For license terms, see the file LICENSE."

-- Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@...
[mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Peter Williams
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:52 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info

What about naming the field that represents the actual
license of a
file/package "License".  In the current spec File
already has such a
property so all that would have to be done is adjust the
verbiage
slightly and make it apply to packages too.

"LicenseDetected" is a little ambiguous for what this field
actually
represents.  "DeclaredLicenses" would be
clearer.  "DeclaredLicenses"
also has the advantage already being defined on package and
it means
the same thing there.   We could just make
that property apply to
files too.

Peter
openlogic.com

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM,  <kate.stewart@...>
wrote:
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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Soeren_Rabenstein@...
 

I am trying to understand the meaning and value of "detected" and/or
"declared" as distinguished from "your best guess", i.e., "asserted".
I don't know about this one. Would this statement be representable in
a declared license file? It requires multiple facts and deduction
[...]

I haven't been in the spdx-team from the beginning on, so I do not
exactly know what the original purpose of these two license declarations
is. But judging from daily experience I assume it is to cover the
situation where there is neither a license file nor any licensing
comments in the source code, however it is known from other sources
(e.g. community website) that the software is licensed under particular
terms.

In fact there might be multiple facts and deductions involved.

In order to avoid conflicting license tags in one spdx file, wouldn't it
be more viable to have only one license tag, but an additional tag
determining the source of that license information (maybe in categories
like "license file", "documentation". "website[URL]", etc) ?

Cheers
Soeren



=====================================================================================================================================
This email and any attachments to it contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
is addressed.If you are not the intended recipient or receive it accidentally, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete
the message and any attachments from your computer system, and destroy all hard copies. If any, please be advised that any unauthorized
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is illegal and prohibited. Furthermore, any views
or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of ASUSTeK. Thank you for your cooperation.
=====================================================================================================================================


Re: Licence abbreviations?

dmg
 

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: Licence abbreviations?

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

What kind of example did you have in mind? Do you mean an example of a particular software package that uses a particular license?

Sent from J's iPhone

On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:22 PM, "dmg" <dmg@...> wrote:

Thanks Jylayne,

one thing that would be useful (for those of us wanting to identify
the license of a file) is to have examples of the use of each license
(not the license itself,
but how it is used). Many of these licenses, I haven't seen them in the wild.

---dmg

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy
<Jlovejoy@...> wrote:
Daniel,

The license list spreadsheet is located here:
http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list

The most recent version is 1.4 and will have a column with the short
names therein. The associated word doc just has some explanations
regarding the fields, etc.

Jilayne

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of D M German
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:43 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Licence abbreviations?


Hi Everybody,

is there a place where the abbreviations (as to be used in the SPDX
document) are listed? This page only lists the full names.

http://www.spdx.org/licenses/


--
--
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



--
--dmg

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


Re: Licence abbreviations?

dmg
 

Thanks Jylayne,

one thing that would be useful (for those of us wanting to identify
the license of a file) is to have examples of the use of each license
(not the license itself,
but how it is used). Many of these licenses, I haven't seen them in the wild.

---dmg

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy
<Jlovejoy@...> wrote:
Daniel,

The license list spreadsheet is located here:
http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list

The most recent version is 1.4 and will have a column with the short
names therein.  The associated word doc just has some explanations
regarding the fields, etc.

Jilayne

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of D M German
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:43 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Licence abbreviations?


Hi Everybody,

is there a place where the abbreviations (as to be used in the SPDX
document) are listed? This page only lists the full names.

http://www.spdx.org/licenses/


--
--
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



--
--dmg

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


Re: Licence abbreviations?

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

Daniel,

The license list spreadsheet is located here:
http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list

The most recent version is 1.4 and will have a column with the short
names therein. The associated word doc just has some explanations
regarding the fields, etc.

Jilayne

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of D M German
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:43 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Licence abbreviations?


Hi Everybody,

is there a place where the abbreviations (as to be used in the SPDX
document) are listed? This page only lists the full names.

http://www.spdx.org/licenses/


--
--
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


Licence abbreviations?

dmg
 

Hi Everybody,

is there a place where the abbreviations (as to be used in the SPDX
document) are listed? This page only lists the full names.

http://www.spdx.org/licenses/


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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
<scott.k.peterson@...> wrote:
Kate and Peter --

I am trying to understand the meaning and value of "detected" and/or "declared" as distinguished from "your best guess", i.e., "asserted".

What would be the value of the detected or declared field for the two cases where the file included one of these strings:

"This file is licensed under the same terms as Perl."
I don't know about this one. Would this statement be representable in
a declared license file? It requires multiple facts and deduction
based on those facts to determine what licenses are actually being
referenced. It that sort of inference is allowed i can think of
several options for rendering it into the spdx model. It would either
be a simple list of the licenses or a composite licensing info
structure if we want to preserve the junctive relationships in the
declaration.

"For license terms, see the file LICENSE."
In this case the value of the declared licenses field would be the
identifier for LICENSE. Either a short form license id from the
standard list or the locally unique embedded license id for that
license.

Peter
openlogic.com


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)
 

Kate and Peter --

I am trying to understand the meaning and value of "detected" and/or "declared" as distinguished from "your best guess", i.e., "asserted".

What would be the value of the detected or declared field for the two cases where the file included one of these strings:

"This file is licensed under the same terms as Perl."

"For license terms, see the file LICENSE."

-- Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Peter Williams
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:52 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Re: Purpose of licensing info

What about naming the field that represents the actual license of a
file/package "License". In the current spec File already has such a
property so all that would have to be done is adjust the verbiage
slightly and make it apply to packages too.

"LicenseDetected" is a little ambiguous for what this field actually
represents. "DeclaredLicenses" would be clearer. "DeclaredLicenses"
also has the advantage already being defined on package and it means
the same thing there. We could just make that property apply to
files too.

Peter
openlogic.com

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, <kate.stewart@...> wrote:
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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Philip Odence
 

I think the concept is sound and, as Rockett says, consistent.

Minor stuff: 
- I agree with Peter that we may want to tweak the names and the descriptions. 
- Description under Asserted still says "detected" in a few places.

Great progress on a thorny issues.

Phil



On Jan 13, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Esteban Rockett wrote:

Kate:

Thank you for sending.  Agree 100%.

All:

This issue has been a continually thought of all founders since the origins of SPDX.

The below is consistent with the original intent of SPDX, and direction of the SPDX Core Team, SPDX Legal Workstream, and Linux Foundation Member Counsel.

I look forward to finalizing in the meeting tomorrow.

Many thanks,

Rockett





Many thanks,

Rockett


On 2011-01-13, at 11:46 AM, <kate.stewart@...> wrote:

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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

Kate:

Thank you for sending. Agree 100%.

All:

This issue has been a continually thought of all founders since the origins of SPDX.

The below is consistent with the original intent of SPDX, and direction of the SPDX Core Team, SPDX Legal Workstream, and Linux Foundation Member Counsel.

I look forward to finalizing in the meeting tomorrow.

Many thanks,

Rockett





Many thanks,

Rockett

On 2011-01-13, at 11:46 AM, <kate.stewart@...> wrote:

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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

What about naming the field that represents the actual license of a
file/package "License". In the current spec File already has such a
property so all that would have to be done is adjust the verbiage
slightly and make it apply to packages too.

"LicenseDetected" is a little ambiguous for what this field actually
represents. "DeclaredLicenses" would be clearer. "DeclaredLicenses"
also has the advantage already being defined on package and it means
the same thing there. We could just make that property apply to
files too.

Peter
openlogic.com

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, <kate.stewart@...> wrote:
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


Re: Purpose of licensing info

kate.stewart@...
 

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 General Meeting link

Philip Odence
 

Note: I realize that the link I sent our for the webshare has an older date embedded in it. Please ignore and use it anyway.
Thanks, Phil


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


Purpose of licensing info

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

There has been a bit of discussion in the technical working group
about the role of judgments in spdx. It has been suggested that
information that is the result of human, or automated heuristic,
judgment should disallowed/discouraged in spdx files.

This has lead me to wonder a about the primary purpose of the
licensing parts of spdx. Do we intended for spdx files to convey the
actual licenses under which a package is copyable? Or should spdx
files convey the just licenses under which a package is explicitly
stated/declared to be copyable?

The actual licensing of a package is often not fully and explicitly
stated. (Files don't have header, code snippets are copied, etc.)
Therefore if spdx conveys the actual licensing of a package this will
require representing human/heuristic judgments.

Conveying the actual licensing will also mean that two spdx files for
the same package might disagree regarding the licensing. This could
happen because one was generated by a person or tool that discovered
more facts. (For example, a tool might detect that some of the code
in a file appears to originate from some other project while a human
on their own might not.) Or it could result from different judgments
being made from the same information.

If we limit spdx to conveying only the stated/declared licensing we
would avoid inharmonious spdx files. This would be achieved by
precluding judgments (or limiting the types of allowed judgments to a
very small set). However, consumers would not be able to treat spdx
files as an authoritative guide to the licensing of the package. The
set of declared/explicitly stated licenses would often be incomplete
and sometimes it would be erroneous.

The beta spec states that "information that cannot be derived from an
inspection (whether manual or using automated tools) of the package to
be analyzed" is "not covered in the specification". This would seem
to imply that judgments about what licenses a package was copyable
under would be allowed if those judgments where based in discoverable
facts. However, i am not sure it is entirely cut and dry.

I think some this issue bares some discussion in the larger group.
Are technical judgments regarding the licensing of the files and
packages acceptable and/or desirable in spdx files?

Peter
openlogic.com


Agenda for Thursday's SPDX General Meeting

Philip Odence
 

Meeting Time: Dec 2, 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:
Note, we will be using a different URL for each meeting for purposes of taking attendance. When you login PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR FULL NAME IN THIS FORM: Phil Odence, Black Duck Software so I can just copy/paste into minutes. THXhttp://blackducksoftware.na6.acrobat.com/spdx2dec10
 
Administrative Agenda
Attendance

Technical Team Report - Kate

Business Team Report - Kim/JohnE
Beta program status

Legal Team Report - Rockett/Karen

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
• Rockett- Post regular meeting times on Legal Team page. 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


Updated Invitation: SPDX Legal Workstream Bi-Weekly Call 11ET/10CT/8PT @ Wed Jan 12 8am - 9am (spdx@fossbazaar.org)

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

This event has been changed.

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

Changed: All:

- Please note, proposed minutes from our last meeting are posted on the SPDX Wiki under the Legal Workstream section. Sorry for the delay. We will allow an additional week for approval of these minutes.

- Adding (1) Agenda for today's 2-Jan-2011 meeting, (2) International Dial-in Numbers, and (3) Proposed Minutes from Last Meeting:


(1) -- 12-Jan-2011 -- Proposed Agenda

(A) Last Meeting Minutes Posted; Additional Week to Review

(B) Update on "Create Process/Method to Add Licenses"

(C) Update on SPDX Metadata License Discussion with Bradley and SPDX Core Team

(D) Continue/Conclude Discussion on Use of SPDX Standard License Acronyms

(E) Issue raised from Tech Workstream on the need for a Legal Policy on "SPDX Not Validating License Recited"

(F) Any New Topics


(2) -- International Dial-in Numbers --

Conference PIN: 0376146

Country

Toll free number

AUSTRALIA

1800003691

AUSTRIA

0800292117

BELGIUM

080077968

CANADA

8772832663

CHINA Netcom (CNC)*

10 800 712 3245
10 800 714 0551

CHINA Telecom (CT)*

10 800 120 3245

DENMARK

80703158

FINLAND

0800770232

FRANCE

0800941694

GERMANY

08001014510

GREECE

0080016122038641

HONG KONG

800967971

HUNGARY

0680015286

INDIA (Bharti) **

000 800 001 2005

INDIA (Reliance)

000195

INDIA (VSNL)

0008001005009

INDIA (ALL OTHER CARRIERS) **

000 800 100 6006

INDONESIA

008800105490 (mobile excluded)

INDONESIA Alternate

0018030113665 (mobile excluded)

IRELAND

1800944115

ISRAEL

1809458641

ITALY

800781687

JAPAN

00531160347

LUXEMBOURG

80023984

MALAYSIA

1 800 802 411

MONACO

80093182

NETHERLANDS

08002658218

NEW ZEALAND

0800447808

NORWAY

80057408

PHILIPPINES

180011100676

POLAND

008001114561

PORTUGAL

800819894

RUSSIA

81080022521012

SINGAPORE

800 120 0250

SOUTH AFRICA

0800990934

SOUTH KOREA

00308140426

SPAIN

900971504

SWEDEN

0201400558

SWITZERLAND

0800563963

TAIWAN, THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA

00801126569

THAILAND

0018001562038641

UNITED KINGDOM

08006920816

UNITED STATES

8772832663


***
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 Jan 12 8am – 9am Pacific Time
Where
Conference Bridge 1.877.825.8522 PIN:0376146 (map)
Calendar
spdx@...
Who
Esteban Rockett - organizer
amanda.brock@...
tony.gomes@...
sadams@...
feb.cabrasawan@...
jmcbroom@...
rfontana@...
linda.shih@...
Alexandra.Siegel@...
mpierovi@...
kathleen.mullins@...
JOHN ELLIS
rtiller@...
alastern@...
Mikko.Amper@...
adcohn@...
paul.madick@...
ilardi@...
areid@...
owen.james.boyle@...
smortin@...
Mansour Ghomeshi
scott.k.peterson@...
Guy.Colpitts@...
bgieseman@...
pmcbride@...
spaek@...
tcarlson@...
andrew.wilson@...
barbara.reilly@...
jwacha@...
bkahin@...
andrew.updegrove@...
mrc@...
mccoy.smith@...
ssemel@...
gsjones@...
kcopenhaver@...
spdx-legal-request@...
spdx@...

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 Bi-Weekly Call 11ET/10CT/8PT @ Every 2 weeks from 8am to 9am on Wednesday from Wed Jan 12 to Wed Dec 14 (spdx@fossbazaar.org)

Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
 

This event has been changed.

Changed: 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
Every 2 weeks from 8am to 9am on Wednesday from Wed Jan 12 to Wed Dec 14 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@...

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.

1341 - 1360 of 1604