|
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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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@...>
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: Purpose of licensing info
Soeren_Rabenstein@...
[...]I am trying to understand the meaning and value of "detected" and/orI don't know about this one. Would this statement be representable in 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?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Sent from J's iPhone
On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:22 PM, "dmg" <dmg@...> wrote:
Thanks Jylayne,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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, -- --dmg --- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: Licence abbreviations?
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
Daniel,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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 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 --
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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._______________________________________________ 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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: Purpose of licensing info
Esteban Rockett <mgia3940@...>
Kate:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. THX. http://blackducksoftware.na6.acrobat.com/spdx2dec10 Administrative Agenda
Technical Team Report - Kate Business Team Report - Kim/JohnE
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@...>
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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@...>
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|