meeting tomorrow and some issues to review

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

I meant to send an updated list of issues but it sat in my draft box for 
too long...


Let's look at the following issue during our call tomorrow:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2343
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2390
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2424
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2442

I think a bunch of the items below can be dealt with in the issue/don't 
need discussion, but we'll work through as much as we can!


Thanks,
Jilayne


Here's a revised list!

Need help on naming mostly:


  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2397 - dumpasn1 -
need further input on license text itself and naming
  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2409 - one more
person to confirm and agree on naming
  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2410 - one more
person to confirm and input on naming
  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2427



Markup questions:

 * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2429 - see my
   comment and suggestion


Need license review

  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2213 - 3DSlicer
  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2333 - FLOSS
exception - this is very familiar but I don't see it on the SPDX
License List already - needs review
  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2410 - Intel license
  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2349 - HPND
variant to add - need one more person to review and input on naming
  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2350 - HPND
variant - new license or could be accommodated with markup?
  * https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2428





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3542): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3542
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/105456913/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow (thursday) at noon Eastern US time

[J Lovejoy]

Hi All,

Big thanks to Steve for pushing the 3.21 before going on vacation!

For tomorrow, I'd like to spend a bit of time on the following items, 
please have a look in advance!


https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1773 - this needs 
another person to weigh in (Steve and I already have)


https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1925 - also needs more 
input (and then to determine if whatever outcome for the 2.0 version 
should also apply to 1.0 and 1.1 )


Now that the spec will have the ability to make a custom `AdditionRef-` 
for something that is not on the SPDX License List of exception but is 
intended to represent additional language which is meant to be added to 
a License, but which is not itself a standalone License. - should we 
close out the additional patent grant issues as being able to use this 
(instead of adding to the exception list)?


If there's time, I'd also like to touch on the public domain dedication 
thread that I started 
https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/topic/public_domain_dedication/98776908 
To be clear, any of the major changes discussed in the thread would 
require a Change Proposal, but I'm not sure myself as to best approach, 
so wanted to get some input from the community first.


Thanks!
Jilayne






-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3425): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3425
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/99691774/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/leave/2655900/21656/2011363115/xyzzy 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow, various updates

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Reminder we have our regular SPDX-legal meeting tomorrow at noon US 
eastern time at https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting


As for agenda:
1) We will have Vedant Jolly - our GSoC student working on improvements 
and increased functionality for the SPDX license submission tool. You 
can see his proposal here: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3378


2) Please have a look in advance at (and feel free to comment in the issue):
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1959
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1925 (also two other 
issues for previous version of same)

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1047

3) If there's time, I'd also like to touch on the public domain 
dedication thread that I started 
https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/topic/public_domain_dedication/98776908 
To be clear, any of the major changes discussed in the thread would 
require a Change Proposal, but I'm not sure myself as to best approach, 
so wanted to get some input from the community first.



Also note that Ria has submitted a Change Proposal related to the 
license field in the SPDX spec itself. Please see 
https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/8 and comment there. We 
will find a time to have a discussion on this on a later call.


Thanks,
Jilayne





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3401): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3401
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/99119196/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/leave/2655900/21656/2011363115/xyzzy 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Just a reminder of our regular legal team meeting at 9am Pacific time.

We'll look at some of the open issues and discuss how to best tackle the 
many new license submissions we have!


See: 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22new+license%2Fexception+request%22


We also need to address the Change Proposal re: "ExceptionRef" - see 
https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/blob/main/proposals/ExceptionRef.md 
and discussion at https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/4


However, given that I am only getting this reminder out now and we 
should have more notice to people for cross-team awareness, please 
consider if our final meeting of the year on Dec 22nd would be a good 
time to discuss, if we should schedule a different time before the end 
of the year, or if we should put this on hold until January?


Thanks,
Jilayne


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3284): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3284
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/95532622/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow (Thursday)

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

We have our regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow at 10 am mountain time (aka 
9am Pacific time / noon eastern time). 

As we draw close to the end of this release cycle, let’s take an honest look at 
what we will accomplish for the documentation goals.

Please review: 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Adocumentation
 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues?q=is:open+is:issue+label:documentation>
 and consider what you can contribute.

Thanks,
Jilayne

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3256): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3256
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/94297474/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

[J Lovejoy]

I wanted to clarify Philippe’s comment on how the SPDX-legal team chooses ids 
(which is generally documented here: 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-fields.md ) 
as specific to the examples mentioned below:

(also note - this thread was cross-posted to the tech and legal mailing lists, 
but it looks like David (?) is not on the legal mailing list, so it then seems 
like all replies may only be going to the tech list. If there is a 
cross-functional topic, please be sure you are a member of the relevant mailing 
lists so responses don’t get sidetracked away from one list or another)

> Re: Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces 
> From: Philippe Ombredanne
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:43:01 MDT 
> 
> 
> 2) has the SPDX legal team agreed to not assign any SPDX IDs that 
> case-insensitively match a current or future Scancode Key without matching 
> license texts? (I hope so, otherwise migrating to qualified license IDs is 
> unavoidable.)
> Not that I know of, but that would be a fairly easy and super useful
> thing alright.
> As a practical conflict example, we have been tracking in ScanCode the
> Arphic Public License with the "arphic-public" and SPDX
> "LicenseRef-scancode-arphic-public". When this was eventually added to
> SPDX in the license list 3.17 this May, the key picked by SPDX has
> been instead: "Arphic-1999"
> 
> The way we resolve this in the ScanCode licensedb is to:
> - use the new "Arphic-1999" as the SPDX license id
> - move our now "old" "LicenseRef-scancode-arphic-public" to a list of
> "other_spdx_license_keys" because our user and their tools may depend
> on this.
> 
> FWIW, we have been tracking this "arphic-public" for at least seven
> years since before ScanCode was called ScanCode. I am not claiming
> precedence here, rather just stating the date since when we started
> tracking these in ScanCode licensedb for reference. These licenses
> likely have existed for a long while before.
> 
> The same also happened in that same SPDX license list release:
> - SPDX picked "Baekmuk" over ScanCode's "baemuk-fonts" (in ScanCode
> since before 2015)
> - SPDX picked "Bitstream-Vera" over ScanCode's "bistream" (in ScanCode
> since before 2015)
> - SPDX picked "mplus" over ScanCode's "m-plus" (in ScanCode since 2019)
> 
> So if the SPDX process could kindly consider and reuse identifiers we
> have already used in ScanCode that would be more than nice and surely
> help diminish a possible source of confusion.
> 
ALL of the examples referenced were licenses already recognized and used by 
Fedora on their list. SPDX adopted the ids already in use by Fedora. This is 
directly inline with the documented description of SPDX License List fields for 
short identifiers as per the link above. I would hope that we can all agree 
that we should adopt the id used by a long-standing community project.



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3152): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3152
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/91653386/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [spdx-tech] Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Dear David:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:57 AM David Kemp  wrote:
>
> Philippe,
>
>> I am not sure I read you correctly but if are you suggesting that
>> Dennis, other ScanCode contributors and I are "refusing to collaborate
>> on deconflicting local IDs" for SPDX license ids, that's quite the
>> opposite.
>
>
> I did not think that, and I sincerely apologize for ineptly giving that 
> impression. My intention was to thank Dennis for the opportunity to learn 
> about ScanCode, and to express puzzlement that a namespacing approach was 
> being considered.
>
> I hope that processes and procedures for maintaining a coordinated license 
> list can be worked out, and I'll try to avoid further interfering with that 
> process.

You are not interfering at all... and I found your reply and insights
super useful. I do not know your background, but it is clear that you
have experience in this domain. So please do not stop!

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3150): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3150
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/91669820/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [spdx-tech] Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Hi David:

Thank you for your detailed feedback. See some comments inline below:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:47 AM Dennis Clark  wrote:
>> Here is an example license list:
>>
>> https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 12:16 AM David Kemp  wrote:
>
> Thanks Dennis.  It appears that scancode has already done the administrative 
> work to establish a unified (non-federated) license list.
>
>Key  Shortname   SPDX ID
> apache-2.0Apache 2.0 Apache-2.0
> apl-1.1   APL-1.1LicenseRef-scancode-apl-1.1
>
> Federated identity management is well-understood by users - nobody would 
> mistakenly think that dav...@gmail.com (or gmail:Dave99 using namespace:local 
> notation) is the same person as dav...@outlook.com (or outlook:Dave99).  But 
> switching to federated license IDs (spdx:Apache-2.0 and scancode:apl-1.1) 
> doesn't sound like a user-friendly solution.  The only thing that federation 
> buys you is the ability to use colliding local IDs.  But the cost is having 
> to use qualified license IDs in order to avoid confusion and collisions.  Is 
> refusing to collaborate on deconflicting local IDs really worth that cost?

I am not sure I read you correctly but if are you suggesting that
Dennis, other ScanCode contributors and I are "refusing to collaborate
on deconflicting local IDs" for SPDX license ids, that's quite the
opposite.

For the record there are 530 licenses and exceptions in the SPDX
license list as of today (including obsolete ones). The latest
ScanCode license database (in git) has roughly 1300 **additional**
licenses that are not yet tracked in SPDX (1343 including deprecated).
We can contribute all these **today** to SPDX alright, but under the
current SPDX rules and staffing, it will take a very long while
(impossible to estimate) to have these reviewed and accepted; and they
may not be accepted at all based on current rules.

> Questions:
> 1) has scancode assigned any Keys that case-insensitively match an SPDX ID 
> but do not match license texts?  (I assume not.)

No. We carefully ensure that there is no id conflict and have provided
and provide guarantees to our user community that ScanCode license
keys are aligned and do not conflict with SPDX license ids (ignoring
case) going as far as deprecating some of our license keys when new
SPDX assignments created a conflict (and these rare conflicts have
never been our making).

> 2) has the SPDX legal team agreed to not assign any SPDX IDs that 
> case-insensitively match a current or future Scancode Key without matching 
> license texts?  (I hope so, otherwise migrating to qualified license IDs is 
> unavoidable.)

Not that I know of, but that would be a fairly easy and super useful
thing alright.
As a practical conflict example, we have been tracking in ScanCode the
Arphic Public License with the "arphic-public" and SPDX
"LicenseRef-scancode-arphic-public". When this was eventually added to
SPDX in the license list 3.17 this May, the key picked by SPDX has
been instead: "Arphic-1999"

The way we resolve this in the ScanCode licensedb is to:
- use the new "Arphic-1999" as the SPDX license id
- move our now "old" "LicenseRef-scancode-arphic-public" to a list of
"other_spdx_license_keys" because our user and their tools may depend
on this.

FWIW, we have been tracking this "arphic-public" for at least seven
years since before ScanCode was called ScanCode. I am not claiming
precedence here,  rather just stating the date since when we started
tracking these in ScanCode licensedb for reference. These licenses
likely have existed for a long while before.

The same also happened in that same SPDX license list release:
- SPDX picked "Baekmuk" over ScanCode's "baemuk-fonts" (in ScanCode
since before 2015)
- SPDX picked "Bitstream-Vera" over ScanCode's "bistream" (in ScanCode
since before 2015)
- SPDX picked "mplus" over ScanCode's "m-plus" (in ScanCode since 2019)

So if the SPDX process could kindly consider and reuse identifiers we
have already used in ScanCode that would be more than nice and surely
help diminish a possible source of confusion.

> 3) for additional license authorities (e.g., "acme") is the same 
> first-come-first-served id deconfliction rule acceptable?

I cannot see nor fathom why not... ids are cheap! So this is 100%
fine. The only value of an "id" is to "identify" and be easy enough to
read and memorize for humans.

> 4) What problem are you trying to solve by not agreeing on a unified local ID 
> list?
> A unified list can always include a registration authority column to 
> communicate different registration requirements. I don't understand the need 
> for anything else.

You may be incorrectly assuming that Dennis, ScanCode and its
contributors are "not agreeing on a unified local ID list". Again
that's quite the opposite and speaking on behalf of this community, I
am 100% for a unified license ID list which will benefit everyone and
be a disservice to none.

Please 

Re: Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

[Steve Winslow]

Hi Gary, thanks for all of the above. Just one comment for folks on the
list of agenda items -- for items 2 and 3, I think this may have
accidentally copied over the same problem statement as item 1:

2. Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference is in
> one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.
> Consensus that this is better addressed by REUSE.  No need to further
> discuss as a problem statement.

3. Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference is in
> one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.
> No consensus on this topic


Looking back at the notes, I think these were supposed to be:

2. Unable to reference or locate text for non-listed licenses when used in
license expressions within source files
Consensus that this is better addressed by REUSE.  No need to further
discuss as a problem statement.
3. Unable to reference or locate text for non-listed licenses when license
expressions are used in package manager meta-data files

No consensus on this topic
. . .


Just wanted to highlight in case people are looking at this list instead of
the minutes from last week's meeting.

Talk to you all shortly,
Steve

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 3:04 PM Gary O'Neall  wrote:

> Greetings SPDX tech and legal teams,
>
>
>
> A reminder we are continuing the license namespace discussions tomorrow,
> Friday, 10 June 2022, at the same time (15:00 UTC, 8AM Pacific).
>
>
>
> We will be using the Legal Team’s JITSI meeting coordinates:
>
>
>
> https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting
>
> Dial-in: +1.512.647.1431 PIN: 3275 0470 68#
>
>
>
> We will focus this meeting on the namespace proposals continuing the
> discussions where we left off last week.
>
>
>
> The minutes including the agenda can be found here:
> https://github.com/spdx/meetings/blob/main/joint/2022-06-03.md
>
>
>
> I would like to limit the problem statement discussion to 20 minutes, 30
> at most.
>
>
>
> To make this discussion more efficient and productive, I would like to
> stick with the list and actions we discussed last week and not introduce
> any new problem statements.
>
>
>
> Here’s a summary of the problem statement lists and actions we agreed to –
> along with a few additional suggestions some of you have made:
>
>
>
> TL;DR – we’re going to focus on #5 below.
>
>
>
>1. Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference
>is in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.
>   - Agreed existing spec features cover this, but needs better
>   documentation.  Agreed to update Annex D.  No need to discuss as a 
> problem
>   statement – we’ll need a plan to document which we will discuss later in
>   the agenda
>2. Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference
>is in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.
>   - Consensus that this is better addressed by REUSE.  No need to
>   further discuss as a problem statement.
>3. Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference
>is in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.
>   - No consensus on this topic
>   - Action was to identify at least one package manager group who
>   would agree to implement namespaces before including this in the problem
>   statements.  If we do not find at least one such package manager group 
> by
>   our meeting tomorrow, we will consider this problem out of scope for 
> this
>   specific namespace solution
>   - At the start of the meeting – we will check to see if anyone
>   found such a package manager group.
>4. Ability to efficiently reference common licenses which are not on
>the SPDX License List, including those which do not meet the SPDX license
>inclusion principles Reworded: Should we have a way to efficiently
>reference common licenses which are not on the SPDX License List,
>regardless of context (e.g. not specific to source code / Documents /
>package managers)
>   - The votes for this were 9 in favor, 3 not in favor.  We’ll
>   discuss on the call, but it looks pretty likely this will be in scope 
> for
>   the namespace problems to solve (I’m hoping this is a very short 
> discussion)
>5. Ability to advertise the availability of license lists other than
>the SPDX license list
>   - There was an almost even split on this problem statement, so
>   further discussion is warranted
>   - It was pointed out during and after the meeting, that this is a
>   bit confusing as to what we mean by “advertise”.  To help clarify, I 
> would
>   like to

Re: [spdx-tech] Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

[Dennis Clark]

Here is an example license list:

https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/

Regards,
Dennis Clark


On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:35 PM David Kemp  wrote:

> Namespaces are used to register authoritative sources; before you can
> "find" another license list, the list must exist and be maintained.
>
> Is there an example of an organization that maintains a license list?  If
> so, the alternatives are
> 1) collaborate to manage a single license list
> 2) agree on namespace values for SPDX and the other managing
> organization(s).
>
> #1 sounds by far to be the easier process.  But without a specific example
> of a second namespace, there are no criteria for deciding between 1 and 2,
> and this sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
>
> Dave
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 3:04 PM Gary O'Neall 
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings SPDX tech and legal teams,
>>
>>
>>
>> A reminder we are continuing the license namespace discussions tomorrow,
>> Friday, 10 June 2022, at the same time (15:00 UTC, 8AM Pacific).
>>
>>
>>
>> We will be using the Legal Team’s JITSI meeting coordinates:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting
>>
>> Dial-in: +1.512.647.1431 PIN: 3275 0470 68#
>>
>>
>>
>> We will focus this meeting on the namespace proposals continuing the
>> discussions where we left off last week.
>>
>>
>>
>> The minutes including the agenda can be found here:
>> https://github.com/spdx/meetings/blob/main/joint/2022-06-03.md
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to limit the problem statement discussion to 20 minutes, 30
>> at most.
>>
>>
>>
>> To make this discussion more efficient and productive, I would like to
>> stick with the list and actions we discussed last week and not introduce
>> any new problem statements.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here’s a summary of the problem statement lists and actions we agreed to
>> – along with a few additional suggestions some of you have made:
>>
>>
>>
>> TL;DR – we’re going to focus on #5 below.
>>
>>
>>
>>1. Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference
>>is in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.
>>   - Agreed existing spec features cover this, but needs better
>>   documentation.  Agreed to update Annex D.  No need to discuss as a 
>> problem
>>   statement – we’ll need a plan to document which we will discuss later 
>> in
>>   the agenda
>>2. Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference
>>is in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.
>>   - Consensus that this is better addressed by REUSE.  No need to
>>   further discuss as a problem statement.
>>3. Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference
>>is in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.
>>   - No consensus on this topic
>>   - Action was to identify at least one package manager group who
>>   would agree to implement namespaces before including this in the 
>> problem
>>   statements.  If we do not find at least one such package manager group 
>> by
>>   our meeting tomorrow, we will consider this problem out of scope for 
>> this
>>   specific namespace solution
>>   - At the start of the meeting – we will check to see if anyone
>>   found such a package manager group.
>>4. Ability to efficiently reference common licenses which are not on
>>the SPDX License List, including those which do not meet the SPDX license
>>inclusion principles Reworded: Should we have a way to efficiently
>>reference common licenses which are not on the SPDX License List,
>>regardless of context (e.g. not specific to source code / Documents /
>>package managers)
>>   - The votes for this were 9 in favor, 3 not in favor.  We’ll
>>   discuss on the call, but it looks pretty likely this will be in scope 
>> for
>>   the namespace problems to solve (I’m hoping this is a very short 
>> discussion)
>>5. Ability to advertise the availability of license lists other than
>>the SPDX license list
>>   - There was an almost even split on this problem statement, so
>>   further discussion is warranted
>>   - It was pointed out during and after the meeting, that this is a
>>   bit confusing as to what we mean by “advertise”.  To help clarify, I 
>> would
>>   like to split this into 2 different problem statemen

Reminder - meeting tomorrow on License Namespaces

[Gary O'Neall]

Greetings SPDX tech and legal teams,

 

A reminder we are continuing the license namespace discussions tomorrow,
Friday, 10 June 2022, at the same time (15:00 UTC, 8AM Pacific).

 

We will be using the Legal Team's JITSI meeting coordinates:

 

https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting

Dial-in: +1.512.647.1431 PIN: 3275 0470 68#

 

We will focus this meeting on the namespace proposals continuing the
discussions where we left off last week.

 

The minutes including the agenda can be found here:
https://github.com/spdx/meetings/blob/main/joint/2022-06-03.md 

 

I would like to limit the problem statement discussion to 20 minutes, 30 at
most.

 

To make this discussion more efficient and productive, I would like to stick
with the list and actions we discussed last week and not introduce any new
problem statements.

 

Here's a summary of the problem statement lists and actions we agreed to -
along with a few additional suggestions some of you have made:

 

TL;DR - we're going to focus on #5 below.

 

1.  Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference is
in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.

*   Agreed existing spec features cover this, but needs better
documentation.  Agreed to update Annex D.  No need to discuss as a problem
statement - we'll need a plan to document which we will discuss later in the
agenda

2.  Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference is
in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.

*   Consensus that this is better addressed by REUSE.  No need to
further discuss as a problem statement.

3.  Unable to reference or locate LicenseRef text where the reference is
in one SPDX document and the text is outside that document.

*   No consensus on this topic
*   Action was to identify at least one package manager group who would
agree to implement namespaces before including this in the problem
statements.  If we do not find at least one such package manager group by
our meeting tomorrow, we will consider this problem out of scope for this
specific namespace solution
*   At the start of the meeting - we will check to see if anyone found
such a package manager group.

4.  Ability to efficiently reference common licenses which are not on
the SPDX License List, including those which do not meet the SPDX license
inclusion principles Reworded: Should we have a way to efficiently reference
common licenses which are not on the SPDX License List, regardless of
context (e.g. not specific to source code / Documents / package managers)

*   The votes for this were 9 in favor, 3 not in favor.  We'll discuss
on the call, but it looks pretty likely this will be in scope for the
namespace problems to solve (I'm hoping this is a very short discussion)

5.  Ability to advertise the availability of license lists other than
the SPDX license list

*   There was an almost even split on this problem statement, so further
discussion is warranted
*   It was pointed out during and after the meeting, that this is a bit
confusing as to what we mean by "advertise".  To help clarify, I would like
to split this into 2 different problem statements:

*   Ability to promote license lists other than the SPDX license list in
a similar fashion to how we promote tools that support the SPDX standard
*   Ability to locate/find license lists other than the SPDX license
list

6.  Should namespace proposal help solve the issue of capturing variants
of licenses which match the same listed licenses per the matching
guidelines?

*   There were 2 votes for this, 6 votes against
*   I followed up with both votes for and they are OK not including this
in the namespace discussion
*   Even if we don't solve this in the namespace proposal, it still
needs to be discussed - suggest discussing it in a separate meeting -
perhaps one of the legal or tech team calls

 

Following the problem statements discussion, we can decide on what actions
need to be taken followed by the policy discussion followed by the syntax
and process discussion per the original agenda.

 

See you online tomorrow.


Best regards,


Gary

 

 

From: Gary O'Neall  
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 2:11 PM
To: 'spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org' ; 'SPDX-legal'

Subject: Minutes from joint SPDX Tech Legal call available for review

 

Greetings SPDX tech and legal team members,

 

Thanks to all the attendees of today's joint tech / legal call where we
discussed the namespace proposals.

 

I just created a pull request with the minutes at
https://github.com/spdx/meetings/pull/180

 

Those of you on the call, please review and comment if we missed anything.

 

We have scheduled a follow-up meeting for next Friday, 10 June 2022, at the
same time (15:00 UTC, 8AM Pacific).

 

We will be using the Legal Team's JITSI meeting coordinates:

 

https://meet.

legal team meeting tomorrow

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Just a reminder that due to getting on a every second and fourth Thursday of 
the month schedule, we have a meeting tomorrow. You all should have received a 
new invite from Steve.

Please have a look at (and comment in the issue, if possible) the following new 
license submissions:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1368 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1368>
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1393 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1393> 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1407 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1407>
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1406 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1406>
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1405 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1405>


We also might discuss the following issues:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1369 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1369> 

Thanks,
Jilayne

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3091): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3091
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/89014168/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

no legal-team meeting tomorrow

[J Lovejoy]

Hi everyone,

On account of the US Thanksgiving holiday, we will not have an 
SPDX-legal team meeting tomorrow, Thursday, Nov 25th


Have a great holiday or weekend and we'll be back on schedule in December!

Jilayne


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3046): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3046
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/87287148/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow and some topics

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Just a reminder we have our legal call tomorrow/Thursday at the usual 
time and place. https://meet.jit.si/SPDXLegalMeeting

Paul and I both have a conflicts, but Steve will there.

Now that we have 3.14 out the door (thanks to all who helped!), here are 
a few other roles and projects that it would be good to address:


- Earlier this year we discussed divvying up some specific, regular 
roles: one of them being note-taking during meetings, which Christina 
has graciously taken the lead on - thanks!
- Another was "license request steward" - basically, ensuring new 
license requests get addressed, labeled, and a milestone added. I 
believe Emmanuel volunteered for this back in March, but he seems to not 
be around as much, so perhaps we should reassign this?
- We also were going to undertake a review of the FAQ, made a Gdoc to 
edit/collaborate  - 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WBV0f8L_ddUf9P3eUXMoCwQJiHSckWNA1ykNil8JxGY/edit 
- and I think I realized much of it was so out-dated that is needed a 
heavy update/re-write.  Sebastian - I think the revived Outreach team 
has since been looking at the website overall, can you give an update as 
to how that plays out with the license list FAQs and let the legal team 
know what help the Outreach team needs at this point?
- Steve, is this a good time for an update on the licensing profile, 
next steps, where the legal team should engage, do we need joint 
tech/legal team meetings, etc.



Have a good call and see you all in a couple weeks!

Jilayne



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#2993): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2993
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/84984393/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Meeting tomorrow, Feb. 4

[Steve Winslow]

Hello SPDX legal team,

The next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be tomorrow,
Thursday, Feb. 4. It will be at our usual time of 9AM PST / noon EST,
following the SPDX general meeting one hour earlier.

The primary agenda for the legal team call with focus on reviewing current
status of issues for 3.12.

For the 3.12 release, we made the decision to push the target release date
out from end of January to current target of February 19. There are some
problems we are sorting through with the existing CI setup for validating
and publishing the license templates, so it is possible that this date will
be pushed back further as a result. We will keep this list informed on
further updates.

Best,
Steve

= = = = =

https://zoom.us/j/93441586616?pwd=R3hINWNvZ3ZWOUw5Q21peHF2Y3o5QT09

*Meeting ID: 934 4158 6616*
*Passcode: 681480*

One tap mobile
+13126266799,,93441586616# US (Chicago)
+16465588656,,93441586616# US (New York)

Dial by your location
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington D.C)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
855 880 1246 US Toll-free
877 369 0926 US Toll-free
+1 647 558 0588 Canada
+1 778 907 2071 Canada
+1 204 272 7920 Canada
+1 438 809 7799 Canada
+1 587 328 1099 Canada
+1 647 374 4685 Canada
855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 934 4158 6616
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aBKeucSql

-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#2907): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2907
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/80367784/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Meeting tomorrow, June 18

[Steve Winslow]

Hello all,

The next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be tomorrow,
Thursday, June 18, at 9AM PDT / noon EDT.

I'm hoping that we can take a few minutes at the beginning of the meeting
to discuss:
1) follow-up from the joint tech/legal team call last week; and
2) the GSoC work and proposal from Smith Tanjong Agbor that was shared with
the mailing list earlier today, see
https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2821

After that, we will review status updates on the various open issues for
3.10.

Best,
Steve

= = = = =

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/611416785


Meeting ID: 611 416 785

One tap mobile
+16465588656,,611416785# US (New York)
+16699006833,,611416785# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
877 369 0926 US Toll-free
855 880 1246 US Toll-free
+1 647 558 0588 Canada
855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 611 416 785
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aceZFvRyln


-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2823): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2823
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/74941272/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Meeting tomorrow, Mar. 12

[Steve Winslow]

Sounds great, thank you Jilayne! Looking forward to discussing on the call.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:31 PM J Lovejoy  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just merged that PR - we had a bunch of comments and figured it’d be
> easier to have a clean iteration to look at for the meeting. Please see:
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md
>
> README and some aspects of CONTRIBUTING have also seen updates, so please
> have a look and provide comments or suggestions in the repo.
>
> Thanks,
> Jilayne
>
> On Mar 11, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Steve Winslow 
> wrote:
>
> Hello all, the next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be
> tomorrow, Thursday, Mar. 12 at 9AM PDT / noon EDT.
>
> The primary agenda item will be to discuss, and ideally finalize for now,
> the license inclusion principles update at
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/985. We will also discuss
> whether to push out the 3.9 release deadline to incorporate this and some
> of the relevant related license requests.
>
> = = = = =
> Join Zoom Meeting
> https://zoom.us/j/611416785
> 
>
> Meeting ID: 611 416 785
>
> One tap mobile
> +16465588656,,611416785# US (New York)
> +16699006833,,611416785# US (San Jose)
>
> Dial by your location
> +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
> 877 369 0926 US Toll-free
> 855 880 1246 US Toll-free
> +1 647 558 0588 Canada
> 855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
> Meeting ID: 611 416 785
> Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aceZFvRyln
> 
>
>
> --
> Steve Winslow
> Director of Strategic Programs
> The Linux Foundation
> swins...@linuxfoundation.org
> 
>
>
>

-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2752): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2752
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/71880925/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Meeting tomorrow, Mar. 12

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

I just merged that PR - we had a bunch of comments and figured it’d be easier 
to have a clean iteration to look at for the meeting. Please see: 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md
 


README and some aspects of CONTRIBUTING have also seen updates, so please have 
a look and provide comments or suggestions in the repo.

Thanks,
Jilayne

> On Mar 11, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Steve Winslow  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello all, the next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be 
> tomorrow, Thursday, Mar. 12 at 9AM PDT / noon EDT. 
> 
> The primary agenda item will be to discuss, and ideally finalize for now, the 
> license inclusion principles update at 
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/985 
> . We will also discuss 
> whether to push out the 3.9 release deadline to incorporate this and some of 
> the relevant related license requests.
> 
> = = = = =
> Join Zoom Meeting
> https://zoom.us/j/611416785 
> 
> 
> Meeting ID: 611 416 785
> 
> One tap mobile
> +16465588656,,611416785# US (New York)
> +16699006833,,611416785# US (San Jose)
> 
> Dial by your location
> +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
> 877 369 0926 US Toll-free
> 855 880 1246 US Toll-free
> +1 647 558 0588 Canada
> 855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
> Meeting ID: 611 416 785
> Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aceZFvRyln 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steve Winslow
> Director of Strategic Programs
> The Linux Foundation
> swins...@linuxfoundation.org 
> 


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2751): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2751
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/71880925/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Meeting tomorrow, Mar. 12

[Steve Winslow]

Hello all, the next regularly-scheduled SPDX legal team meeting will be
tomorrow, Thursday, Mar. 12 at 9AM PDT / noon EDT.

The primary agenda item will be to discuss, and ideally finalize for now,
the license inclusion principles update at
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/985. We will also discuss
whether to push out the 3.9 release deadline to incorporate this and some
of the relevant related license requests.

= = = = =
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/611416785


Meeting ID: 611 416 785

One tap mobile
+16465588656,,611416785# US (New York)
+16699006833,,611416785# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
877 369 0926 US Toll-free
855 880 1246 US Toll-free
+1 647 558 0588 Canada
855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 611 416 785
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aceZFvRyln



-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2750): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2750
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/71880925/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow POSTPONED to next week, Dec 19th / release update

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Due to some unforeseen circumstances, both Steve and I are not available 
tomorrow. Given this would be our last meeting for 2019 (unless people 
wanted to meet on Dec 26th?), I'd like to postpone to next week, Dec 
19th. Please adjust your calendars accordingly.


Also, we have not had enough help to get through many of the issues in 
the queue for the next release, which would normally occur at the end of 
the month. If you use the SPDX License List in anyway, if you are 
reading this message, PLEASE check the issues in the Github repo and 
provide any help you can.


Thanks,

Jilayne
SPDX legal team co-lead

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2705): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2705
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/68229032/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Meeting tomorrow, Oct. 17

[Steve Winslow]

Hello all,

The next Legal Team meeting will be tomorrow, Thursday, Oct. 17 at 9AM PT /
12PM ET.

I expect the 3.7 release will be complete and live within the next couple
of days. So on tomorrow's call, the primary topic will be to focus in on
the license inclusion guidelines update that has been in discussion at [1].

As much fun as group writing isn't, on the call let's aim to get specific
on what changes are appropriate to make to the inclusion guidelines [2].
Take another read through the issue thread and the current guidelines, and
come with thoughts on wording changes that we can start implementing for
3.8.

**Please note** the updated UberConference URL below for the call.

Dial-in info:
Web conference: https://www.uberconference.com/room/SPDXTeam
Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586

Best,
Steve

[1] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/925
[2]
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md#candidate-license-analysis

-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2678): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2678
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/34668235/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Meeting tomorrow, Sept. 5

[Steve Winslow]

Hi folks -- for the Legal Team call in about 50 minutes, it looks like
UberConference has up and changed their user interface and also their
URL scheme for joining calls  :)

For the call, try using the following link instead:
https://www.uberconference.com/room/SPDXTeam
And either way, the dial-in number should (hopefully) still work: +1
415-881-1586

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:01 PM Steve Winslow via Lists.Spdx.Org  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> The next Legal Team meeting will be tomorrow, Thursday, Sept. 5 at 9AM PT
> / 12PM ET (following the General Meeting one hour earlier).
>
> Dial-in info:
> Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam
> Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
> --
> Steve Winslow
> Director of Strategic Programs
> The Linux Foundation
> swins...@linuxfoundation.org
> 
>
>

-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2661): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2661
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/33145065/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Meeting tomorrow, Sept. 5

[Steve Winslow]

Hello all,

The next Legal Team meeting will be tomorrow, Thursday, Sept. 5 at 9AM PT /
12PM ET (following the General Meeting one hour earlier).

Dial-in info:
Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam
Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586

Best,
Steve

-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2660): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2660
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/33145065/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

3.6 License List release; meeting tomorrow

[Steve Winslow]

Hello all, a few notes and announcements:

1) The version 3.6 release of the license list is now tagged and live at
https://spdx.org/licenses. Along with several documentation updates, markup
tweaks, and technical improvements in the license list tooling, 10 new
licenses and exceptions were added to the list:

blessing
BlueOak-1.0.0
BSD-3-Clause-Open-MPI
CC-PDDC
Parity-6.0.0
SHL-0.5
SHL-0.51
SSPL-1.0
Swift-exception
Universal-FOSS-exception-1.0

The release notes can be found at
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/releases/tag/v3.6

2) The minutes from the latest Legal Team meeting on June 27 are now posted
at https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2019-06-27 (apologies for
the delay in posting!)

3) The next Legal Team meeting will be tomorrow, July 11 at 9AM PT / 12PM
ET. I expect the agenda will cover:
* planning for the existing issues to be tackled in 3.7
* the "SPDX-Copyright" proposal being discussed at
https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/122
* possibly, the license list namespace registry GSoC project that was
shared on this list earlier this week

Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam
Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586

-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2640): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2640
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/32422420/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow (thursday)

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

We will have our regularly scheduled call. (see dial in info here: 
https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team )

I’d like to make a point to spend a bit of time discussing the topic below. 
Otherwise, we will also try to tackle any new issues or issues marked as 
needing discussion at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues 


SPDX has always endeavored to have ALL OSI-approved licenses on the SPDX 
License List.  The SPDX License List also has NOT included licenses that are 
clearly not open source (with a couple notable exceptions, like CC-NC-* and 
CC-ND-*).  We have yet, that I know of, to encounter the explicit question of:
 - what if the OSI rejects a license - then it’s not open source and therefore, 
SPDX should not include it on the SPDX License List? Would this be the outcome 
for our decision making process and if so, should we document that for purposes 
of expectations?

Another aspect we ought to consider: what if the OSI just mulls something over 
for a long time, looks like it’s not going to approve it, then the author pulls 
the request, so there is never a technical rejection? 
To my knowledge, I think we have one example of this in the CC-0 public domain 
dedication.

Also - there is a general SPDX call the hour prior to our legal call. By way of 
shameless promotion of work I was involved in, Aaron Williamson and I will be 
guest speakers on the Open Source Compliance Handbook that the FINOS Foundation 
released a couple months ago :)

Thanks,
Jilayne
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2590): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2590
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/31450345/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[J Lovejoy]

just realized this only went to Richard.  See corrected meeting time/zones 
below!

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: J Lovejoy 
> Subject: Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday
> Date: November 28, 2018 at 9:55:47 PM MST
> To: Richard Fontana 
> 
> here’s the source of truth: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team 
> <https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team>
> 
> which I usually try not to “quote”!  I know it’s 10am Mountain Time, but I’m 
> the only one in MT, so tried to “translate” to more common time zones 
> (unsuccessfully, its appears in this case!)
> 
> so, let me re-phase: the meeting is at 10am MT (9am PT, noon ET, - which 
> should also be 5pm UK time, and 6pm central European time)
> 
> Thanks for the catch!
> 
> Jilayne
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:52 PM, Richard Fontana > <mailto:rfont...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Should that be 12 noon Eastern time? (or 8am Pacific?)
>> 
>> From: "J Lovejoy" mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>>
>> To: "SPDX-legal" > <mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 11:20:10 PM
>> Subject: meeting tomorrow/Thursday
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> 
>> We’ll be back on our regularly scheduled call tomorrow/Thursday at 9am 
>> Pacific time / 11am Eastern time / 5pm Central European time. 
>>  Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam 
>> <http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam>
>>  Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586
>>  No PIN needed
>> 
>> We scheduled for this meeting to discuss the way to refer to license 
>> exception or “additional permissions” in a broader way. I have drafted some 
>> proposed changes to the way we describe this part of the SPDX License List 
>> in a Google doc, using tracked changes as compared to the current text. You 
>> can see that here: 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vWlwlIN1IKNn-lJMx1iqZ7A2Xb-b3lTZ9WjhRQov-DE/edit?usp=sharing
>>  
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vWlwlIN1IKNn-lJMx1iqZ7A2Xb-b3lTZ9WjhRQov-DE/edit?usp=sharing>
>> 
>> If you are unable to view that link, the basic premise is to replace 
>> “exception” with “license modifier” to use a more neutral and inclusive 
>> term. (attempts to download in .pdf or .odt did not include the tracked 
>> changes… grrr)
>> 
>> We will also discuss specific requests for:
>> the Linux kernel enforcement statement - 
>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655 
>> <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655> 
>> 
>> the GPL Cooperation Commitment - 
>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/714 
>> <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/714>
>> 
>> as well as the variants for the Google patent grant - 
>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/646 
>> <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/646> 
>> 
>> and also see https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-28 
>> <https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-28>
>> 
>> I’m sorry I didn’t send this sooner to enable some pre-meeting email 
>> discussion, but would greatly appreciate if people could have a look at 
>> these items prior to the call so we can hit the ground running.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jilayne
>> 
>> 
> 


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2447): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2447
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/28484247/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[Richard Fontana]

Should that be 12 noon Eastern time? (or 8am Pacific?) 

- Original Message -

From: "J Lovejoy"  
To: "SPDX-legal"  
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 11:20:10 PM 
Subject: meeting tomorrow/Thursday 

Hi all, 


We’ll be back on our regularly scheduled call tomorrow/Thursday at 9am Pacific 
time / 11am Eastern time / 5pm Central European time. 
Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam 
Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586 
No PIN needed 

We scheduled for this meeting to discuss the way to refer to license exception 
or “additional permissions” in a broader way. I have drafted some proposed 
changes to the way we describe this part of the SPDX License List in a Google 
doc, using tracked changes as compared to the current text. You can see that 
here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vWlwlIN1IKNn-lJMx1iqZ7A2Xb-b3lTZ9WjhRQov-DE/edit?usp=sharing
 

If you are unable to view that link, the basic premise is to replace 
“exception” with “license modifier” to use a more neutral and inclusive term. 
(attempts to download in .pdf or .odt did not include the tracked changes… 
grrr) 

We will also discuss specific requests for: 
the Linux kernel enforcement statement - 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655 

the GPL Cooperation Commitment - 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/714 

as well as the variants for the Google patent grant - 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/646 

and also see https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-28 

I’m sorry I didn’t send this sooner to enable some pre-meeting email 
discussion, but would greatly appreciate if people could have a look at these 
items prior to the call so we can hit the ground running. 


Thanks, 
Jilayne 
 


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2446): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2446
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/28484247/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,


We’ll be back on our regularly scheduled call tomorrow/Thursday at 9am Pacific 
time / 11am Eastern time / 5pm Central European time. 
Web conference: http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam
Optional dial in number: 415-881-1586
No PIN needed

We scheduled for this meeting to discuss the way to refer to license exception 
or “additional permissions” in a broader way. I have drafted some proposed 
changes to the way we describe this part of the SPDX License List in a Google 
doc, using tracked changes as compared to the current text. You can see that 
here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vWlwlIN1IKNn-lJMx1iqZ7A2Xb-b3lTZ9WjhRQov-DE/edit?usp=sharing

If you are unable to view that link, the basic premise is to replace 
“exception” with “license modifier” to use a more neutral and inclusive term. 
(attempts to download in .pdf or .odt did not include the tracked changes… grrr)

We will also discuss specific requests for:
the Linux kernel enforcement statement - 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655 

the GPL Cooperation Commitment - 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/714

as well as the variants for the Google patent grant - 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/646 

and also see https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-06-28

I’m sorry I didn’t send this sooner to enable some pre-meeting email 
discussion, but would greatly appreciate if people could have a look at these 
items prior to the call so we can hit the ground running.


Thanks,
Jilayne
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2445): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2445
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/28484247/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: meeting tomorrow and other updates

[J. Simmons]

Thanks, Andrew. I for one had planned to submit Solderpad and TAPR licenses
if things move forward with supporting OSHW licenses.

 -J

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 02:08 Andrew Katz  wrote:

> Thanks J
>
> I intend to be on the call, so as one of the drafters of the licence, I’d
> be happy to discuss any questions people may have and also present the
> roadmap for the release of CERN OHL 2.0.
>
> I would also be keen to gauge the reaction to me submitting Solderpad 1.0
> and 2.0 (they are permissive open hardware licences based heavily on the
> Apache 2.0 license).
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Andrew
>
> On 1 Nov 2018, at 04:41, J. Simmons mailto:j...@mach30.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for getting the OSHW licensing question on the agenda.
> Unfortunately, I am not available for the meeting tomorrow, but I have
> submitted the CERN OHL v1.2 as an example request (hopefully I did not
> double submit).
>
>  -J
>
>
>
> Andrew Katz
> Partner
>
> Moorcrofts LLP
>
> andrew.k...@moorcrofts.com<mailto:andrew.k...@moorcrofts.com>
> +44 (0) 1628 47 (Phone)
> +44 (0) 1628 470003 (Direct Dial)
> +44 (0) 7970 835001 (Mobile)
>
> Thames House, Mere Park, Dedmere Road, Marlow, Bucks SL7 1PB
>
> [cid:imagb2e.PNG@8ecf4adf.4994e590]<https://www.moorcrofts.com>
>
> Corporate Law | Technology Law | Commercial Law | Employment Law |
> Employee Incentivisation
> & Share Schemes | Intellectual Property Law | Commercial Property Law |
> Secured Lending
> [cid:imagea548b9.PNG@0a393085.4c914510]<
> https://moorcrofts.com/moorcrofts-named-finalists-in-women-in-business-awards/
> >[cid:image9125f6.PNG@c9b6f1b1.41aaa909]<
> https://moorcrofts.com/moorcrofts-named-finalists-in-women-in-business-awards/
> >
> Registered in England & Wales OC 311818 Authorised and Regulated by the
> Solicitors Regulation Authority
> This email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> let us know. we store email addresses and the names of addressees to assist
> with future correspondence.
> Please be aware of the increase in fraud and cyber crime. any email that
> appears to come from Moorcrofts LLP which provides different bank details
> or indicates a change of our bank details is unlikely to be genuine. You
> should not act on any information contained in the email or reply to it.
> Instead please contact us immediately to check our account details
>
>
> 
>
> --
J. Simmons, PhD
President
Mach 30: Foundation for Space Development
http://mach30.org
<https://www.facebook.com/Mach30>  <http://twitter.com/mach_30>
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/10437396047327856/10437396047327856/posts>

*~ ad astra per civitatem ~*to the stars through community

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2439): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2439
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27810830/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: meeting tomorrow and other updates

[Andrew Katz]

Thanks J

I intend to be on the call, so as one of the drafters of the licence, I’d be 
happy to discuss any questions people may have and also present the roadmap for 
the release of CERN OHL 2.0.

I would also be keen to gauge the reaction to me submitting Solderpad 1.0 and 
2.0 (they are permissive open hardware licences based heavily on the Apache 2.0 
license).

Thanks


Andrew

On 1 Nov 2018, at 04:41, J. Simmons mailto:j...@mach30.org>> 
wrote:

Thanks for getting the OSHW licensing question on the agenda.  Unfortunately, I 
am not available for the meeting tomorrow, but I have submitted the CERN OHL 
v1.2 as an example request (hopefully I did not double submit).

 -J



Andrew Katz
Partner

Moorcrofts LLP

andrew.k...@moorcrofts.com<mailto:andrew.k...@moorcrofts.com>
+44 (0) 1628 47 (Phone)
+44 (0) 1628 470003 (Direct Dial)
+44 (0) 7970 835001 (Mobile)

Thames House, Mere Park, Dedmere Road, Marlow, Bucks SL7 1PB

[cid:imagb2e.PNG@8ecf4adf.4994e590]<https://www.moorcrofts.com>

Corporate Law | Technology Law | Commercial Law | Employment Law | Employee 
Incentivisation
& Share Schemes | Intellectual Property Law | Commercial Property Law | Secured 
Lending
[cid:imagea548b9.PNG@0a393085.4c914510]<https://moorcrofts.com/moorcrofts-named-finalists-in-women-in-business-awards/>[cid:image9125f6.PNG@c9b6f1b1.41aaa909]<https://moorcrofts.com/moorcrofts-named-finalists-in-women-in-business-awards/>
Registered in England & Wales OC 311818 Authorised and Regulated by the 
Solicitors Regulation Authority
This email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please let 
us know. we store email addresses and the names of addressees to assist with 
future correspondence.
Please be aware of the increase in fraud and cyber crime. any email that 
appears to come from Moorcrofts LLP which provides different bank details or 
indicates a change of our bank details is unlikely to be genuine. You should 
not act on any information contained in the email or reply to it. Instead 
please contact us immediately to check our account details


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2438): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2438
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27810830/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: meeting tomorrow and other updates

[J. Simmons]

Thanks for getting the OSHW licensing question on the agenda.  Unfortunately, I 
am not available for the meeting tomorrow, but I have submitted the CERN OHL 
v1.2 as an example request (hopefully I did not double submit).  

 -J

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2437): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2437
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27810830/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: meeting tomorrow and other updates

[J Lovejoy]

oops, also meant to add:

discussion as to adding open hardware and open data to our license inclusion 
guidelines more explicitly - see: 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/719 


Yes, I realize we probably won’t get to all that, but wanted to at least put 
out some things for thought and to get on your radar, even if not discussed at 
this meeting - we can always discuss on the mailing list too, of course.

Jilayne

> On Oct 31, 2018, at 5:05 PM, J Lovejoy  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We have our call tomorrow at 10am Mountain Time - REMINDER!!  I believe 
> Europe has already ended daylight savings/put their clocks back, while here 
> in the US we do that this coming weekend. This should mean the the meeting is 
> an hour earlier for our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. But rather 
> than trust me on that one - might want to check something like this: 
> http://www.timebie.com/std/denver.php?q=10 
> 
> 
> Also: please note: we will NOT have a meeting on November 15th due to some 
> schedule conflicts.  Please update your calendar accordingly.
> 
> 3.3 is now released, in case you hadn’t already noticed.  I have also just 
> made “release notes” - been meaning to do that for awhile… see: 
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES.md 
>  - I’m 
> not really sure what release notes should look like or how much detail we 
> want to include, so feedback on a somewhat set format is welcome (as in, make 
> a pull request or comment there).
> 
> Agenda for meeting and other topics we need to sort out:
> 
> 1) new license submission process: we now have some tooling but were in the 
> process of testing before we update the process for submitting a request for 
> a new license. To that end, I’ve added a few issues for the tooling, see: 
> https://github.com/spdx/tools/issues  
> (the ones that start, “Submit New License”) - I think we ought to discuss the 
> workflow, timing for switching to this, but also how to manage discussion on 
> new license submissions: that is, should we push that all to Github comments 
> or just email list? At the moment, it’s a bit of both, which is feeling a bit 
> inefficient. 
> 
> 2) tackle a few outstanding issues: please review before call and be ready to 
> discuss
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/611 
> 
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/686 
> 
> 
> 3) defining roles: in the past we had certain people who were responsible for 
> certain tasks. While we sort of have that informally, I’d like to have a 
> discussion as to how we can divvy up tasks / responsibilities better.  At the 
> moment, I have a bit more time and am happy to lead the charge to get us more 
> “caught up”, as I know I was a bit absent at times over the past couple 
> years, but I can’t commit to this kind of time indefinitely :)  We need to 
> consider a more well-rounded and sustainable model that also prevents issues 
> from becoming stale. (ideally). If we don’t have time to discuss tomorrow, 
> please think about this and we can start a thread here on thoughts to this 
> end.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Jilayne
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2435): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2435
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27810830/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

meeting tomorrow and other updates

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

We have our call tomorrow at 10am Mountain Time - REMINDER!!  I believe Europe 
has already ended daylight savings/put their clocks back, while here in the US 
we do that this coming weekend. This should mean the the meeting is an hour 
earlier for our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. But rather than 
trust me on that one - might want to check something like this: 
http://www.timebie.com/std/denver.php?q=10 


Also: please note: we will NOT have a meeting on November 15th due to some 
schedule conflicts.  Please update your calendar accordingly.

3.3 is now released, in case you hadn’t already noticed.  I have also just made 
“release notes” - been meaning to do that for awhile… see: 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES.md 
 - I’m 
not really sure what release notes should look like or how much detail we want 
to include, so feedback on a somewhat set format is welcome (as in, make a pull 
request or comment there).

Agenda for meeting and other topics we need to sort out:

1) new license submission process: we now have some tooling but were in the 
process of testing before we update the process for submitting a request for a 
new license. To that end, I’ve added a few issues for the tooling, see: 
https://github.com/spdx/tools/issues  
(the ones that start, “Submit New License”) - I think we ought to discuss the 
workflow, timing for switching to this, but also how to manage discussion on 
new license submissions: that is, should we push that all to Github comments or 
just email list? At the moment, it’s a bit of both, which is feeling a bit 
inefficient. 

2) tackle a few outstanding issues: please review before call and be ready to 
discuss
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/611 

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/686 


3) defining roles: in the past we had certain people who were responsible for 
certain tasks. While we sort of have that informally, I’d like to have a 
discussion as to how we can divvy up tasks / responsibilities better.  At the 
moment, I have a bit more time and am happy to lead the charge to get us more 
“caught up”, as I know I was a bit absent at times over the past couple years, 
but I can’t commit to this kind of time indefinitely :)  We need to consider a 
more well-rounded and sustainable model that also prevents issues from becoming 
stale. (ideally). If we don’t have time to discuss tomorrow, please think about 
this and we can start a thread here on thoughts to this end.


Thanks,
Jilayne





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2434): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2434
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27810830/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: EPL-2.0 final text (was: meeting tomorrow, general update)

[Richard Fontana]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:08:15PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:10:44PM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote:
> > Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice
> > 
> > "This Source Code may also be made available under the following 
> > Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth 
> > in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are satisfied: {name license(s),
> > version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}."
> 
> This seems like the new version.  The OSI still hasn't published their
> approved text [1], although they were originally considering the “This
> Source Code is also Distributed under” wording [2] and that's what
> they approved [3].  The text change is under OCI discussion in [4],
> but that just started yesterday.  We probably want to wait and see how
> the change shakes out in the OSI before stamping an ID for the final
> text.

This is now probably sufficiently resolved for purposes of the SPDX
legal group. See:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-September/003090.html

Richard


> [1]: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
> [2]: 
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-June/003048.html
>  Subject: [License-review] For Approval: Eclipse Public LIcense version 
> 2.0
>  Date: Thu Jun 15 19:50:51 UTC 2017
> [3]: 
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-August/003074.html
>  Subject: [License-review] For Approval: Eclipse Public LIcense version 
> 2.0
>  Date: Thu Aug 10 17:11:18 UTC 2017
> [4]: 
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-September/003082.html
>  Subject: [License-review] New Exhibit A for EPLv2
>  Date: Thu Sep 14 21:11:06 UTC 2017
> 
> -- 
> This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
> For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy



> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

EPL-2.0 final text (was: meeting tomorrow, general update)

[W. Trevor King]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:10:44PM -0400, Wayne Beaton wrote:
> Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice
> 
> "This Source Code may also be made available under the following 
> Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth 
> in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are satisfied: {name license(s),
> version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}."

This seems like the new version.  The OSI still hasn't published their
approved text [1], although they were originally considering the “This
Source Code is also Distributed under” wording [2] and that's what
they approved [3].  The text change is under OCI discussion in [4],
but that just started yesterday.  We probably want to wait and see how
the change shakes out in the OSI before stamping an ID for the final
text.

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
[2]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-June/003048.html
 Subject: [License-review] For Approval: Eclipse Public LIcense version 2.0
 Date: Thu Jun 15 19:50:51 UTC 2017
[3]: 
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-August/003074.html
 Subject: [License-review] For Approval: Eclipse Public LIcense version 2.0
 Date: Thu Aug 10 17:11:18 UTC 2017
[4]: 
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-September/003082.html
 Subject: [License-review] New Exhibit A for EPLv2
 Date: Thu Sep 14 21:11:06 UTC 2017

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

[Wayne Beaton]

I had intended to attend the call, but entered the coordinates incorrectly
in my calendar. My apologies for missing.

The EPL-2.0 as it exists on the Eclipse Foundation website contains the
actual and final text.

landing page: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0
html: https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.html
plaintext: https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.txt

You'll notice that I've been using what I expect will be the SPDX code in
the URLs.

For consistency with the URL for the EPL-1.0, we've created a "bonus" HTML
URL:

https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v20.html

I've attached it here in HTML and plaintext formats.

Wayne

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J Lovejoy  wrote:

> Indeed.
>
> While we didn’t get to discuss this on the call today as we ran out of
> time, I think it’s a no-brainer that it should be added to the license list
> and that aspect probably does not need discussion :)  If there is some
> oddity as to how it gets added due to the Exhibit (which I admittedly, have
> not investigated/thought about thoroughly yet), that needs to be addressed.
>
> but it would be good to have some assurance that this is the actual and
> final text of the 2.0 version… !!!
>
> Jilayne
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Dennis Clark  wrote:
>
> Richard, Trevor,
>
> Thanks very much for the heads-up about the license text change and
> corresponding details. Yes, Unversioned license changes are, ahem,
> exciting.
>
> Regards,
> Dennis Clark
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, W. Trevor King  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:36:01PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> > Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org URL, and
>> > specifically Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first
>> > discussed on spdx-legal…
>>
>> Unversioned license changes… exciting :p.  I also see that the initial
>> post to spdx-legal@ [1] didn't include the license text as an
>> attachment (part of the official submission policy [2]), which makes
>> it hard to ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing.
>> Comparing the current content of [3] with [4], the differences are:
>>
>>   $ diff -u EPL-2.0-GitHub EPL-2.0-canonical
>>   --- EPL-2.0-GitHub 2017-08-21 19:58:57.0 -0700
>>   +++ EPL-2.0-canonical  2017-09-06 12:03:33.0 -0700
>>   @@ -261,10 +261,10 @@
>>
>>Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice
>>
>>   -"This Source Code is also Distributed under one
>>   -or more Secondary Licenses, as those terms are defined by
>>   -the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0: {name license(s),version(s),
>>   -and exceptions or additional permissions here}."
>>   +"This Source Code may also be made available under the following
>>   +Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth
>>   +in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are satisfied: {name license(s),
>>   +version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}."
>>
>>  Simply including a copy of this Agreement, including this Exhibit A
>>  is not sufficient to license the Source Code under Secondary
>> Licenses.
>>
>> and a lack of a trailing newline in [3].
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Trevor
>>
>> [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002134.html
>>  Subject: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
>>  Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:52:44 -0400
>>  Message-ID: > qv5uzedam-fk9_-...@mail.gmail.com>
>> [2]: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license
>>  Submission Requirements:
>>  …
>>  4. Create and attach a text file with the license or exception
>> text from the url provided in #3. Please proofread the text
>> file to ensure that:
>>
>> a. Information has not been lost or modified.
>> b. Formatting is clean and consistent with the license or
>>exception URL.
>> [3]: https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.txt
>> [4]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jslicense/EPL-2.0/4ca05c96
>> 19df980e06ed8ebcc5ae9f1b5f7af011/EPL-2.0
>>
>> --
>> This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
>> For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P
>> retty_Good_Privacy
>>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>


-- 
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects
The Eclipse Foundation
Eclipse Public License - v 2.0

THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ECLIPSE
PUBLIC LICENSE ("AGREEMENT"). ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION
OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.

1. DEFINITIONS

"Contribution" means:

  a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial content
 Distributed under this Agre

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

[J Lovejoy]

Indeed.

While we didn’t get to discuss this on the call today as we ran out of time, I 
think it’s a no-brainer that it should be added to the license list and that 
aspect probably does not need discussion :)  If there is some oddity as to how 
it gets added due to the Exhibit (which I admittedly, have not 
investigated/thought about thoroughly yet), that needs to be addressed.

but it would be good to have some assurance that this is the actual and final 
text of the 2.0 version… !!!

Jilayne



> On Sep 14, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Dennis Clark  wrote:
> 
> Richard, Trevor, 
> 
> Thanks very much for the heads-up about the license text change and 
> corresponding details. Yes, Unversioned license changes are, ahem, exciting. 
> 
> Regards,
> Dennis Clark
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, W. Trevor King  > wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:36:01PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org 
> >  URL, and
> > specifically Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first
> > discussed on spdx-legal…
> 
> Unversioned license changes… exciting :p.  I also see that the initial
> post to spdx-legal@ [1] didn't include the license text as an
> attachment (part of the official submission policy [2]), which makes
> it hard to ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing.
> Comparing the current content of [3] with [4], the differences are:
> 
>   $ diff -u EPL-2.0-GitHub EPL-2.0-canonical
>   --- EPL-2.0-GitHub 2017-08-21 19:58:57.0 -0700
>   +++ EPL-2.0-canonical  2017-09-06 12:03:33.0 -0700
>   @@ -261,10 +261,10 @@
> 
>Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice
> 
>   -"This Source Code is also Distributed under one
>   -or more Secondary Licenses, as those terms are defined by
>   -the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0: {name license(s),version(s),
>   -and exceptions or additional permissions here}."
>   +"This Source Code may also be made available under the following
>   +Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth
>   +in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are satisfied: {name license(s),
>   +version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}."
> 
>  Simply including a copy of this Agreement, including this Exhibit A
>  is not sufficient to license the Source Code under Secondary Licenses.
> 
> and a lack of a trailing newline in [3].
> 
> Cheers,
> Trevor
> 
> [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002134.html 
> 
>  Subject: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
>  Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:52:44 -0400
>  Message-ID: 
>  >
> [2]: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license 
> 
>  Submission Requirements:
>  …
>  4. Create and attach a text file with the license or exception
> text from the url provided in #3. Please proofread the text
> file to ensure that:
> 
> a. Information has not been lost or modified.
> b. Formatting is clean and consistent with the license or
>exception URL.
> [3]: https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.txt 
> 
> [4]: 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jslicense/EPL-2.0/4ca05c9619df980e06ed8ebcc5ae9f1b5f7af011/EPL-2.0
>  
> 
> 
> --
> This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org 
> ).
> For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy 
> 
> 
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

[Dennis Clark]

Richard, Trevor,

Thanks very much for the heads-up about the license text change and
corresponding details. Yes, Unversioned license changes are, ahem,
exciting.

Regards,
Dennis Clark


On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, W. Trevor King  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:36:01PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org URL, and
> > specifically Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first
> > discussed on spdx-legal…
>
> Unversioned license changes… exciting :p.  I also see that the initial
> post to spdx-legal@ [1] didn't include the license text as an
> attachment (part of the official submission policy [2]), which makes
> it hard to ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing.
> Comparing the current content of [3] with [4], the differences are:
>
>   $ diff -u EPL-2.0-GitHub EPL-2.0-canonical
>   --- EPL-2.0-GitHub 2017-08-21 19:58:57.0 -0700
>   +++ EPL-2.0-canonical  2017-09-06 12:03:33.0 -0700
>   @@ -261,10 +261,10 @@
>
>Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice
>
>   -"This Source Code is also Distributed under one
>   -or more Secondary Licenses, as those terms are defined by
>   -the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0: {name license(s),version(s),
>   -and exceptions or additional permissions here}."
>   +"This Source Code may also be made available under the following
>   +Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth
>   +in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are satisfied: {name license(s),
>   +version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}."
>
>  Simply including a copy of this Agreement, including this Exhibit A
>  is not sufficient to license the Source Code under Secondary Licenses.
>
> and a lack of a trailing newline in [3].
>
> Cheers,
> Trevor
>
> [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002134.html
>  Subject: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
>  Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:52:44 -0400
>  Message-ID:  qv5uzedam-fk9_-...@mail.gmail.com>
> [2]: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license
>  Submission Requirements:
>  …
>  4. Create and attach a text file with the license or exception
> text from the url provided in #3. Please proofread the text
> file to ensure that:
>
> a. Information has not been lost or modified.
> b. Formatting is clean and consistent with the license or
>exception URL.
> [3]: https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.txt
> [4]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jslicense/EPL-2.0/
> 4ca05c9619df980e06ed8ebcc5ae9f1b5f7af011/EPL-2.0
>
> --
> This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
> For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

[W. Trevor King]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:36:01PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org URL, and
> specifically Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first
> discussed on spdx-legal…

Unversioned license changes… exciting :p.  I also see that the initial
post to spdx-legal@ [1] didn't include the license text as an
attachment (part of the official submission policy [2]), which makes
it hard to ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing.
Comparing the current content of [3] with [4], the differences are:

  $ diff -u EPL-2.0-GitHub EPL-2.0-canonical
  --- EPL-2.0-GitHub 2017-08-21 19:58:57.0 -0700
  +++ EPL-2.0-canonical  2017-09-06 12:03:33.0 -0700
  @@ -261,10 +261,10 @@

   Exhibit A - Form of Secondary Licenses Notice

  -"This Source Code is also Distributed under one
  -or more Secondary Licenses, as those terms are defined by
  -the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0: {name license(s),version(s),
  -and exceptions or additional permissions here}."
  +"This Source Code may also be made available under the following
  +Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth
  +in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are satisfied: {name license(s),
  +version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}."

 Simply including a copy of this Agreement, including this Exhibit A
 is not sufficient to license the Source Code under Secondary Licenses.

and a lack of a trailing newline in [3].

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002134.html
 Subject: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0
 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:52:44 -0400
 Message-ID: 

[2]: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license
 Submission Requirements:
 …
 4. Create and attach a text file with the license or exception
text from the url provided in #3. Please proofread the text
file to ensure that:

a. Information has not been lost or modified.
b. Formatting is clean and consistent with the license or
   exception URL.
[3]: https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.txt
[4]: 
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jslicense/EPL-2.0/4ca05c9619df980e06ed8ebcc5ae9f1b5f7af011/EPL-2.0

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

[Richard Fontana]

Note that the EPL-2.0 text, at the canonical eclipse.org URL, and specifically 
Exhibit A, has been changed since this was first discussed on spdx-legal -- in 
fact I think it was that discussion that led to the change. 




- Original Message -

From: "Dennis Clark"  
To: "J Lovejoy"  
Cc: "SPDX-legal"  
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:53:56 PM 
Subject: Re: meeting tomorrow, general update 

Jilayne, Legal Team, 

I would like to suggest that we include in our meeting agenda the Request to 
add EPL-2.0 to the SPDX License List. This is an important license, and as I 
mentioned in a previous email: "This initial request is just for the EPL-2.0 
License (the easy part). The other issues will be discussed by the legal team, 
which may result in the definition of one or more additions to the Exceptions 
list and/or Notes to be associated with the License." 

The request is here: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681
 

I don't think we want to hold up putting this license on the list because of 
any controversy about how to interpret specific aspects of the license text and 
whether it calls for more extended use of the license expression in actual 
practice. 

Thanks, 
Dennis Clark 
nexB Inc. 


On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:13 PM, J Lovejoy < opensou...@jilayne.com > wrote: 



Hi All, 

A quick update and reminder for tomorrow’s call. 

On our last call, we had come up with a viable (seeming) proposal to respond to 
the FSF’s request for clarification in SPDX identifiers for the “only x 
version” scenario for the GPL family of licenses. Our plan at the end of that 
calls was to present this to the general meeting for further input, a bit more 
time, and then implement if there was no further concerns. The general meeting 
last week did not yield any further concerns, although most people attending 
were already part of the conversation. 

In any case, we can clearly see from the mailing list, that we have not 
bottomed out on this issue and proposal. We are also waiting for further 
guidance from the FSF on some of the questions that came up on the various 
calls. While it’d be great to have this resolved for the next release, we 
cannot rush this and we can also not delay the next release any longer than it 
has already been taking. 

I would ask that we continue this discussion on the mailing list. But in the 
meantime, we need to move forward with the XML work and next release. The call 
tomorrow will focus on picking up that work and what still needs to be done. I 
would encourage people to focus there energy there as well. 

Call information can be found here, as always: 
https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team 


Thanks, 
Jilayne 

SPDX Legal Team co-lead 
opensou...@jilayne.com 



___ 
Spdx-legal mailing list 
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org 
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal 



___ 
Spdx-legal mailing list 
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org 
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal 
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow, general update

[Dennis Clark]

Jilayne, Legal Team,

I would like to suggest that we include in our meeting agenda the Request
to add EPL-2.0 to the SPDX License List.  This is an important license, and
as I mentioned in a previous email:  "This initial request is just for the
EPL-2.0 License (the easy part).  The other issues will be discussed by the
legal team, which may result in the definition of one or more additions to
the Exceptions list and/or Notes to be associated with the License."

The request is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681

I don't think we want to hold up putting this license on the list because
of any controversy about how to interpret specific aspects of the license
text and whether it calls for more extended use of the license expression
in actual practice.

Thanks,
Dennis Clark
nexB Inc.


On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:13 PM, J Lovejoy  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> A quick update and reminder for tomorrow’s call.
>
> On our last call, we had come up with a viable (seeming) proposal to
> respond to the FSF’s request for clarification in SPDX identifiers for the
> “only x version” scenario for the GPL family of licenses.  Our plan at the
> end of that calls was to present this to the general meeting for further
> input, a bit more time, and then implement if there was no further
> concerns.  The general meeting last week did not yield any further
> concerns, although most people attending were already part of the
> conversation.
>
> In any case, we can clearly see from the mailing list, that we have not
> bottomed out on this issue and proposal. We are also waiting for further
> guidance from the FSF on some of the questions that came up on the various
> calls.  While it’d be great to have this resolved for the next release, we
> cannot rush this and we can also not delay the next release any longer than
> it has already been taking.
>
> I would ask that we continue this discussion on the mailing list. But in
> the meantime, we need to move forward with the XML work and next release.
> The call tomorrow will focus on picking up that work and what still needs
> to be done.  I would encourage people to focus there energy there as well.
>
> Call information can be found here, as always: https://wiki.spdx.org/
> view/Legal_Team
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jilayne
>
> SPDX Legal Team co-lead
> opensou...@jilayne.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

meeting tomorrow, general update

[J Lovejoy]

Hi All,

A quick update and reminder for tomorrow’s call.

On our last call, we had come up with a viable (seeming) proposal to respond to 
the FSF’s request for clarification in SPDX identifiers for the “only x 
version” scenario for the GPL family of licenses.  Our plan at the end of that 
calls was to present this to the general meeting for further input, a bit more 
time, and then implement if there was no further concerns.  The general meeting 
last week did not yield any further concerns, although most people attending 
were already part of the conversation.  

In any case, we can clearly see from the mailing list, that we have not 
bottomed out on this issue and proposal. We are also waiting for further 
guidance from the FSF on some of the questions that came up on the various 
calls.  While it’d be great to have this resolved for the next release, we 
cannot rush this and we can also not delay the next release any longer than it 
has already been taking.

I would ask that we continue this discussion on the mailing list. But in the 
meantime, we need to move forward with the XML work and next release.  The call 
tomorrow will focus on picking up that work and what still needs to be done.  I 
would encourage people to focus there energy there as well.

Call information can be found here, as always: 
https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team 


Thanks,
Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com


___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Meeting tomorrow Thursday to start half hour late

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Due to (more) unavoidable schedule conflicts, we'll have our normal legal call 
start at 11:30 Mtn time (1:30 ET) instead of 11. 

We'll get back to updates on XML conversion and other issues from the mailing 
list. 

Thanks,
Jilayne 

Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity. ___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Meeting tomorrow after general call

[JLovejoy]

Hi all,

We have the SPDX legal call tomorrow at a special time due to conference 
interference:
10am Mtn Time, 12 ET, right after the general call.
 
http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam
User PIN: 38633 
or call this number: (United States): +1-857-216-2871

Agenda:
- update from Collab Summit on v2.1 of the spec and the XML license template 
project, and plan for review of XML files going forward.

Thanks, 
Jilayne and Paul

Sent from a small, rectangular device. ___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

meeting tomorrow, April 2 - cancelled

[J Lovejoy]

In light of the 2.0 official release and there already being a General meeting 
tomorrow/Thursday, April 2 (http://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting 
<http://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting>), the Legal Team meeting is 
cancelled and we can all enjoy a “day off” and take a moment to enjoy a big 
effort and job well done!

Cheers,

Jilayne & Paul
SPDX Legal Team co-leads


___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[James C. Roberts III]

Hi, Jilayne,

I am writing an article for the California State Bar IP Section’s magazine, New 
Matter.  I want to cite your organization.  What is the proper citation name 
and form?

Thanks,

James
JAMES C. ROBERTS III
GLOBAL CAPITAL LAW GROUP   |GLOBAL CAPITAL STRATEGIC GROUP
California | Milan (assoc)
US:   +1 (415) 937-7987

Italy: +39.366.431.1090

Skype:  globalcapjames

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/globalcapitallawgroup

 

The contents of this email may be confidential or proprietary and not intended 
for you.  If that is the case, first, we apologize for the inconvenience caused 
by our error.  Second, please keep the email’s content confidential and do not 
use it, then return the email to the sender as soon as possible and delete your 
copy.  Please also note that this email does not contain any explicit or 
implicit tax advice for any jurisdiction, unless the text expressly states to 
the contrary.


On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:58 PM, J Lovejoy  wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> The issues Sam identified below have been updated and we made a few more 
> tweaks on the call today.  Thanks to all the eagle-eyes!  
> 
> Meeting minutes here:  http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-03-19
> 
> Jilayne
> 
> 
> SPDX Legal Team co-lead
> opensou...@jilayne.com
> 
> 
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 4:39 AM, Sam Ellis  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> From: J Lovejoy 
>> Date: Thursday, 19 March 2015 01:29
>> To: SPDX-legal 
>> Subject: meeting tomorrow/Thursday
>> 
>>> 1) Please look over the updated pages as following and be ready to provide 
>>> feedback:
>>> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview - updates to text 
>>> and links at top
>>> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines - updates to 
>>> include exceptions and other minor changes
>>> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception - ditto
>> 
>> 
>> In case I don't make the call, here is some feedback on these pages:
>> 
>> http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview
>> Remove stray '.' in "an exception. operator."
>> http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines
>> Add a space between sentences: "headers.Where applicable"
>> http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception
>> We have two bullets numbered "2)'.
>> There is no such spreadsheet attached to the page: "attach it using the 
>> spreadsheet template available at the bottom of this page.".
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sam Ellis (ARM)
>> 
>> 
>> -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
>> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
>> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the 
>> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the 
>> information in any medium. Thank you.
>> 
>> ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
>> Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
>> ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
>> Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782
>> ___
>> Spdx-legal mailing list
>> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
> 
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[J Lovejoy]

Hi All,

The issues Sam identified below have been updated and we made a few more tweaks 
on the call today.  Thanks to all the eagle-eyes!  

Meeting minutes here:  http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-03-19 
<http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-03-19>

Jilayne


SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com


> On Mar 19, 2015, at 4:39 AM, Sam Ellis  wrote:
> 
> 
> From: J Lovejoy mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 19 March 2015 01:29
> To: SPDX-legal mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>>
> Subject: meeting tomorrow/Thursday
> 
>> 1) Please look over the updated pages as following and be ready to provide 
>> feedback:
>> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview 
>> <http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview> - updates to text 
>> and links at top
>> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines 
>> <http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines> - updates to include 
>> exceptions and other minor changes
>> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception 
>> <http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception> - ditto
> 
> 
> In case I don't make the call, here is some feedback on these pages:
> 
> http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview 
> <http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview>
> Remove stray '.' in "an exception. operator."
> http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines 
> <http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines>
> Add a space between sentences: "headers.Where applicable"
> http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception 
> <http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception>
> We have two bullets numbered "2)'.
> There is no such spreadsheet attached to the page: "attach it using the 
> spreadsheet template available at the bottom of this page.".
> 
> -- 
> Sam Ellis (ARM)
> 
> 
> -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the 
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the 
> information in any medium. Thank you.
> 
> ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
> Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
> ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
> Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[Sam Ellis]

From: J Lovejoy mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>>
Date: Thursday, 19 March 2015 01:29
To: SPDX-legal mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>>
Subject: meeting tomorrow/Thursday

1) Please look over the updated pages as following and be ready to provide 
feedback:
- http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview - updates to text and 
links at top
- http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines - updates to include 
exceptions and other minor changes
- http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception - ditto

In case I don't make the call, here is some feedback on these pages:

http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview

 *   Remove stray '.' in "an exception. operator."

http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines

 *   Add a space between sentences: "headers.Where applicable"

http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception

 *   We have two bullets numbered "2)'.
 *   There is no such spreadsheet attached to the page: "attach it using the 
spreadsheet template available at the bottom of this page.".

--
Sam Ellis (ARM)


-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered 
in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[Dennis Clark]

Hi Team,

I added the new OSI-approved license ( http://opensource.org/licenses/UPL )
 to the Licenses Under Consideration:
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681


Regards,
Dennis Clark
nexB Inc.


On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:29 PM, J Lovejoy  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just a reminder about our call tomorrow at 10 PST / 11 MST / 1 EST
>
> *NOTE: We “sprang forward” in the US, so if you are in the UK or Europe,
> the time is an hour earlier than usual, e.g., 5pm UK (instead of the usual
> 6pm)*
>
> Call this number: (United States): +1-857-216-2871
>  User PIN: 38633
>  International: visit the URL at http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam
>
> *AGENDA:*
>
> 1) Please look over the updated pages as following and be ready to provide
> feedback:
> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview - updates to
> text and links at top
> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines - updates to
> include exceptions and other minor changes
> - http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception -
> ditto
>
>
> 2) updates to the pending SPDX License List, v2.0 (as per discussion on
> last call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-03-05
> - http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/
>
>
> 3) OSI approved a new license (and we missed it) -
> http://opensource.org/licenses/UPL
>
>
> 4) Github License API - did everyone see this:
> https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com
>
> Thanks,
> Jilayne & Paul
> SPDX Legal Team co-leads
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

meeting tomorrow/Thursday

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Just a reminder about our call tomorrow at 10 PST / 11 MST / 1 EST 

NOTE: We “sprang forward” in the US, so if you are in the UK or Europe, the 
time is an hour earlier than usual, e.g., 5pm UK (instead of the usual 6pm)

Call this number: (United States): +1-857-216-2871 
 User PIN: 38633 
 International: visit the URL at http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam 

AGENDA:

1) Please look over the updated pages as following and be ready to provide 
feedback:
- http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview 
 - updates to text and 
links at top
- http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines 
 - updates to include 
exceptions and other minor changes
- http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license-or-exception 
 - ditto


2) updates to the pending SPDX License List, v2.0 (as per discussion on last 
call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-03-05 

- http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/ 


3) OSI approved a new license (and we missed it) - 
http://opensource.org/licenses/UPL 


4) Github License API - did everyone see this:  
https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com 


Thanks,
Jilayne & Paul
SPDX Legal Team co-leads



___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

reminder: no meeting tomorrow

[J Lovejoy]

Hi All,

Just a reminder that we will not have our regularly scheduled call tomorrow, 
Thursday, 21 August due to a bunch of us being at LinuxCon North America this 
week.

We will be back to our regular bi-weekly call on Thursday, 4 September.

Thanks,

Jilayne Lovejoy and Paul Madick
SPDX Legal Team co-leads




___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

update and agenda for meeting tomorrow

[J Lovejoy]

Hi All, 

A couple updates and the agenda for tomorrow’s call:

Minutes from May 1st meeting have been posted here: 
http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-05-01

Fedora List review: we had our second special call today with Tom Incorvia, 
Dennis Clark, Paul Madick, and Jilayne - got through 15 more licenses; 29 to 
go!!

Agenda for tomorrow’s legal call:

1)  License Expression- Mark Gisi to provide a draft of the integration of the 
new license expression into the 2.0 specification and discuss
2) Exception List- Dennis Clark will discuss efforts on draft list, located 
here: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dDF0ajVveUtRMGFseVVjWS1zV2tCNFE&usp=drive_web#gid=0

3) Fedora List - pick up at line 222 (SCEA) - 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE&usp=drive_web#gid=1
and determine whether one more special call is needed to get through remainder

Cheers,
Jilayne & Paul

SPDX Legal Team co-leads



___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: meeting tomorrow

[Dennis Clark]

Hi SPDX Legal Team,

I updated this page after our meeting:

http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Consideration


You will notice that I took the liberty of breaking out "Processed License
Requests", consisting of licenses now on the current list and rejected
requests, and making that a separate table, thus making the "Licenses Under
Consideration" table a bit easier to comprehend.

Regards,
Dennis Clark
nexB, Inc.




On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:

> 10am PT / 11am MT / 1pm ET
>
> AGENDA:
>
> 1) update on GPL exceptions from Tom V. and update on exception modifiers
> for License List (and special meeting) from Mark G.
> (I'm lumping these two together since they are interrelated)
>
> 2) Creative Commons v4 licenses - request to add to SPDX License List
>
> 3) Fedora list - go through next set of licenses - Zac
>
> 4) Holiday meeting schedule, etc.
>
>
> Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849
> Enter this PIN: 336247
> Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jilayne
>
> SPDX Legal Team lead
> lovejoyl...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

RE: meeting tomorrow

[Tom Incorvia]

FYI, I have attached a "GPL-2.0+-with-autoconf-exception" that is common in the 
wild (we do not currently have a "+" version of this license / exception on the 
SPDX license list).  Tom   Tom Incorvia; 
tom.incor...@microfocus.com<mailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com>; O: (512) 
340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Tom Vidal
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:45 PM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy; SPDX-legal
Subject: RE: meeting tomorrow

I'll be on the call, but I might be a little late.  I expect to be on by 10:15 
(PT).



Thomas H. Vidal, Esq.
Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2250
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Direct Dial: 310.300.2950
Office: 310.300.2900
Facsimile: 310.300.2901
tvi...@agmblaw.com<mailto:tvi...@agmblaw.com>

www.twitter.com/thomasvidal<http://www.twitter.com/thomasvidal>
www.linkedin.com/in/thomashvidal<http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomashvidal>

The information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and 
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
named in the above address.  If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: 
spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org> 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:44 PM
To: SPDX-legal
Subject: meeting tomorrow

10am PT / 11am MT / 1pm ET

AGENDA:

1) update on GPL exceptions from Tom V. and update on exception modifiers for 
License List (and special meeting) from Mark G.
(I'm lumping these two together since they are interrelated)

2) Creative Commons v4 licenses - request to add to SPDX License List

3) Fedora list - go through next set of licenses - Zac

4) Holiday meeting schedule, etc.


Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849
Enter this PIN: 336247
Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio


Cheers,

Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team lead
lovejoyl...@gmail.com<mailto:lovejoyl...@gmail.com>




__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__# This file is part of Autoconf.   -*- Autoconf -*-
# Parameterized macros.
# Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
# 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.
#
# As a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives unlimited
# permission to copy, distribute and modify the configure scripts that
# are the output of Autoconf.  You need not follow the terms of the GNU
# General Public License when using or distributing such scripts, even
# though portions of the text of Autoconf appear in them.  The GNU
# General Public License (GPL) does govern all other use of the material
# that constitutes the Autoconf program.
#
# Certain portions of the Autoconf source text are designed to be copied
# (in certain cases, depending on the input) into the output of
# Autoconf.  We call these the "data" portions.  The rest of the Autoconf
# source text consists of comments plus executable code that decides which
# of the data portions to output in any given case.  We call these
# comments and executable code the "non-data" portions.  Autoconf never
# copies any of the non-data portions into its output.
#
# This special exception to the GPL applies to versions of Autoconf
# released by the Free Software Foun

RE: meeting tomorrow

[Tom Vidal]

I'll be on the call, but I might be a little late.  I expect to be on by 10:15 
(PT).



Thomas H. Vidal, Esq.
Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2250
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Direct Dial: 310.300.2950
Office: 310.300.2900
Facsimile: 310.300.2901
tvi...@agmblaw.com

www.twitter.com/thomasvidal<http://www.twitter.com/thomasvidal>
www.linkedin.com/in/thomashvidal<http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomashvidal>

The information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and 
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
named in the above address.  If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:44 PM
To: SPDX-legal
Subject: meeting tomorrow

10am PT / 11am MT / 1pm ET

AGENDA:

1) update on GPL exceptions from Tom V. and update on exception modifiers for 
License List (and special meeting) from Mark G.
(I'm lumping these two together since they are interrelated)

2) Creative Commons v4 licenses - request to add to SPDX License List

3) Fedora list - go through next set of licenses - Zac

4) Holiday meeting schedule, etc.


Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849
Enter this PIN: 336247
Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio


Cheers,

Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team lead
lovejoyl...@gmail.com<mailto:lovejoyl...@gmail.com>



___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

meeting tomorrow

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

10am PT / 11am MT / 1pm ET

AGENDA:

1) update on GPL exceptions from Tom V. and update on exception modifiers for 
License List (and special meeting) from Mark G.
(I'm lumping these two together since they are interrelated)

2) Creative Commons v4 licenses - request to add to SPDX License List

3) Fedora list - go through next set of licenses - Zac

4) Holiday meeting schedule, etc.


Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849
Enter this PIN: 336247
Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio


Cheers,

Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team lead
lovejoyl...@gmail.com




___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

SPDX Legal Team meeting tomorrow (thursday)

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi All!

Thanks to Paul Madick for running the last legal team meeting while I was gone. 
 Meeting minutes have been posted here: 
http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-10-24

For tomorrow's call, it will follow a similar pattern in terms of updates on 
the following topics:

1) License Matching Guidelines (Jilayne) - The SPDX License List Matching 
Guidelines have been updated as per previous feedback, please have a look here: 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines for one last proof read, 
as there were a couple changes that no one commented on.\

2) "or later" and other license short identifier modifiers (Mark Gisi) - 
discussion has been going on via list; Mark in process of scheduling a special 
meeting for this topic

3) GPL exceptions (Tom V. & Mark Gisi) - update on progress

4) Fedora list (Zac) - update, new licenses to cover, and some discussion about 
short identifiers

Thursday, 7 November
10am PT / 11am MT / 1pm ET

Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849
Enter this PIN: 336247
Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio


SPDX Legal Team lead
lovejoyl...@gmail.com




___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal