|
SPDX Web Site Linkes Appear to be broken
Tom Incorvia
Hi SPDX Team,
Most of the links on the SPDSX site are not working – I was trying to get to the license list.
Tom
This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController. |
|
|
|
Minutes from Business Call
Kim Weins
Hi All
Minutes are now available. http://www.spdx.org/wiki/business-team-meeting-agendaminutes-20110106 We spent most of the call talking about the Beta program. We are targeting Feb 3rd to have an introductory call with all of the potential beta sites (5 to date) to go over details of the program, what we are asking them to do, what we will be providing them, etc. Our next business team call is in 2 weeks — Jan 20th Kim |
|
|
|
Next SPDX General Meeting
Philip Odence
To avoid any confusion, I wanted to make clear that the next SPDX General Meeting is next Thursday, January 13. There would have been a meeting last week, but we cancelled it due to the holidays; Jan 13 follows that date by two weeks. I'll send out a reminder, agenda and dial-in info a few days before. Best, 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
|
|
|
|
Reminder: SPDX Business (Rollout) Call in 15 minutes
Kim Weins
------ Original Appointment
From: kim.weins@... When: 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM December 9, 2010 Subject: SPDX Business (Rollout) Call 11ET/8PT Location: See dial in below US 866-740-1260 Int'l http://www.readytalk.com/support/international-numbers.php ID 2404502 Web Meeting Www.readytalk.com ID 2404502 Agenda We will be covering several areas on the rollout plan. 1. Beta process 2. User Content - what is needed 3. Evangelism and outreachOccurs every 2 week(s) on Thursday effective Thu 12/9/10 ------ End Of Original Appointment |
|
|
|
trying it out for size
Federico Lucifredi
Hello SPDX,
I have been lurking in the background for a while now; I maintain man(1) and I keep a DOAP file on the project site, I thought I would take a crack at SPDX: http://primates.ximian.com/~flucifredi/man/SPDX.rdf I first drafted this in the fall, so the spec may have drifted from there, but I would be interested in critique/comments. Let's have it. Best -F -- _________________________________________ -- "'Problem' is a bleak word for challenge" - Richard Fish (Federico L. Lucifredi) - flucifredi@... - GnuPG 0x4A73884C |
|
|
|
Re: License List 1.4 posted on SPDX site
Tom Incorvia
Hi Jilayne,
Thanks for getting the next rev of the license list out!
Regarding the BSD licenses: I did some of the original work on the BSD licenses. Below is the post from June 2010. Fine if we rethink, but FYI below is the logic that the “early” team used to come up with the long names.
The key issue that we tried to address was that the BSD licenses are inconsistently referred to with adjectives including “Original”, “New”, “Old”, “Modified”, “Simplified” and “Free”.
These adjectives are also often combined inconsistently or outright incorrectly causing additional confusion. We agreed on the # clauses as being definitive for the short names. The current long names that were chosen were a compromise to have the names be as distinct as possible while retaining as much of the naming “lineage” as possible.
The June emails on this topic is below.
Tom =============================== From: Tom Incorvia
One of my tasks from the last call was to propose BSD license long and short names.
Here are the names and logic. These have been integrated into Kate’s list.
BSD License Naming:
Lots of confusion has resulted from the BSD licenses being named with various adjectives including Original, New, Old, Modified, Simplified and Free. These adjectives are also combined, often, and incorrectly, causing additional confusion.
Suffixing with the number of clauses ,however, is quite consistent, so I propose that we do that for the short names as specified below.
- BSD-4-Clause - BSD-3-Clause - BSD-2-Clause
Regarding the long names, to limit the confusion we include accepted, non-overlapping adjectives for each. The long names below reflect the most consistent use of the adjectives historically used to describe the BSD. The only exception is that “New and Simplified” is NOT used in the long name. This combination, although somewhat common, consistently obscures whether the license is the “New” (3-clause) or “Simplified FreeBSD” (2-Clause). Best to avoid this phrase.
Proposed long names are below:
- BSD 4-Clause “Original” or “Old” License - BSD 3-Clause “New” or “Revised” License - BSD 2-Clause “Simplified” or “FreeBSD” License
Tom
===============================
Mobile: (408) 499 6850 From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list
Items of note: Older versions of various licenses have been added. Zlib and libpng licenses are both included.
Only remaining issue that I don’t think we addressed was the naming of the BSD licenses. Currently the long title includes the various common names, e.g. “BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License” This is certainly makes it most identifiable and I didn’t have any better idea of how to handle the various ways these licenses are referred to, so I left as-is.
Happy Holidays!
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController. |
|
|
|
License List 1.4 posted on SPDX site
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list
Items of note: Older versions of various licenses have been added. Zlib and libpng licenses are both included.
Only remaining issue that I don’t think we addressed was the naming of the BSD licenses. Currently the long title includes the various common names, e.g. “BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License” This is certainly makes it most identifiable and I didn’t have any better idea of how to handle the various ways these licenses are referred to, so I left as-is.
Happy Holidays!
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
|
|
|
|
Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification
Tom "spot" Callaway
On 12/22/2010 07:37 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, whichFor SPDX, I suppose it makes sense to take the templated zlib and call it "zlib", and call the libpng variant "libpng", even though I don't think Fedora will ever make that distinction. ~tom == Fedora Project |
|
|
|
My screw up on SPDX biz call this AM
Kim Weins
I told everyone we were planning to have it, and then forgot myself. Holiday brain I guess. We’ll reconvene post-holidays. Kim On Thu 12/23/10 9:09 AM, "Philip Odence" <podence@...> wrote:
Kim Weins | Senior Vice President, Marketing kim.weins@... Follow me on Twitter @KimAtOpenLogic 650 279 0410 | cell www.openlogic.com Follow OpenLogic on Twitter @OpenLogic OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado |
|
|
|
Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, which
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
is basically the zlib license template (no specific copyright) and then the specific libpng license, since it does have some other text differences. In which case, we might simply call it the "zlib" license instead of the OSI's "zlib/libpng" license, which is a bit confusing. Thoughts? I'd like to get the latest version of the license list uploaded tomorrow, if possible, pending this issue :) Jilayne -----Original Message-----
From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa@...] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:27 PM To: Soeren_Rabenstein@... Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; spdx@... Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification On 12/21/2010 09:14 PM, Soeren_Rabenstein@... wrote: This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call:text of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. IsSure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally change the license's meaning, but it is technically different text, even if templated. ~tom == Fedora Project |
|
|
|
Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification
Tom "spot" Callaway
On 12/21/2010 09:14 PM, Soeren_Rabenstein@... wrote:
This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call:Sure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally change the license's meaning, but it is technically different text, even if templated. ~tom == Fedora Project |
|
|
|
Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification
Soeren_Rabenstein@...
This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only difference of which is the Copyright notice? The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I understand this right, we are going to define the reference license text of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is this right? Cheers Soeren -----Original Message-----===================================================================================================================================== 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: zlib and libpng licenses clarification
Tom "spot" Callaway
On 12/21/2010 06:43 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, usingYes, but I think the general trend for the SPDX initiative has been that any difference in wording (with the possible exception of copyright holder identifiers), even if it has no effect on the rights or restrictions of the license, should be a separate and distinct license for tracking purposes. I happen to think that approach spirals off into absurdity, but that's just my opinion. :) ~tom == Fedora Project |
|
|
|
Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
So, do you think we should only list the OSI template version, using
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
their name, "zlib/libpng license" and not include the two package-specific licenses on our initial list? Jilayne -----Original Message-----
From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa@...] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:06 AM To: Jilayne Lovejoy Cc: spdx@...; Martin Michlmayr; jeff@... Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification On 12/20/2010 10:26 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same,Fedora treats these two licenses as functionally identical, and calls them both "zlib". The third license looks to just be a templated version of the zlib license. ~tom == Fedora Project |
|
|
|
Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification
Tom "spot" Callaway
On 12/20/2010 10:26 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same,Fedora treats these two licenses as functionally identical, and calls them both "zlib". The third license looks to just be a templated version of the zlib license. ~tom == Fedora Project |
|
|
|
zlib and libpng licenses clarification
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
I had a question regarding clarifying the zlib and libpng licenses versus what the OSI lists as the zlib/libpng license on their list. Perhaps Tom, Martin, or Jeff can shed some light on this?
The zlib license can be found here: http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html The libpng license can be found here: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt
It appears that the license terms themselves are essentially the same, with the exception of a longer explanation for clause 1 in the zlib license and a lengthier disclaimer statement in the libpng license. Also, the libpng license includes the applicable attribution notices for the various project versions.
Whereas, the OSI has what I would call a generic (no copyright notice at all, nor author name) version of the zlib license. Yet, OSI lists one, which tracks most closely to the zlib license and calls it zlib/libpng: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php
Does anyone have any insight as to why this is this way on the OSI list? More importantly, how should we handle this for our list? List all three variations (what the OSI refers to as zlib/libpng and then the specific zlib and libpng separately) or just the OSI version or what?
I will post the latest version of the license list (with other changes as discussed in the last few meetings) after this question is resolved.
Thanks!
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
|
|
|
|
Issue tracker
Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
We now have a issue tracker for the SPDX specification and related
tools. Please report any issues you are aware of with the spec or tools at <http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=spdx>. (You will need an account but you can easily create one.) This will ensure our ability to rectify any problems with the spec before the final release. All open issues related to SPDX are listed at <http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=spdx&content=>. Peter www.openlogic.com |
|
|
|
Minutes from Dec 16 General Meeting
Philip Odence
Minutes are posted: http://www.spdx.org/wiki/20101216-general-meeting-minutes If you have interest in more closely monitoring or being involved with team activities, you should join team mailing lists: 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
|
|
|
|
Agenda for Dec 16 SPDX General Meeting
Philip Odence
The SPDX General Meeting is for sharing and cross functional coordination between the Technical, Business and Legal Teams. General Meetings are currently scheduled for 60 minutes, but may only require 30 minutes. Note there will be no General Meeting on Dec 30; we'll resume the biweekly schedule on Jan 13, 2011. Meeting Time: Dec 16, 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: There does not seem to be a need to use the web for this meeting, so for now, no link. Administrative Agenda
Technical Team Report - Kate Business Team Report - Kim Legal Team Report - Rockett/Karen Cross Functional Issues - Phil
Action Items |
|
|
|
[Update] SPDX Legal Workstream (Rollout) Call 11ET/10CT/8PT
mgia3940@motorola.com <mgia3940@...>
|
|
|
