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 <dk1...@gmail.com> 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 <g...@sourceauditor.com> > 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 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 <g...@sourceauditor.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, June 3, 2022 2:11 PM >> *To:* 'spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org' <spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org>; >> 'SPDX-legal' <Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> >> *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.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 today. >> >> >> >> Sebastian has volunteered to coordinate a separate call to discuss the >> “License Snippets in Source Files”. This may be a separate meeting or may >> be part of the tech and/or legal calls next week. Stay tuned for further >> meeting details. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> Gary O'Neall >> >> Principal Consultant >> >> Source Auditor Inc. >> >> Mobile: 408.805.0586 >> >> Email: g...@sourceauditor.com >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted, including attachments, >> is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and >> may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, >> re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in >> reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please >> contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information. >> >> >> >> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3146): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3146 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
