View source for Legal Team/Minutes/2013-03-14

<p class="p1"><strong>Attendees:</strong></p><ul><li>Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic</li><li>Tom Vidal</li><li>Dennis Clark</li><li>Jack Manbeck</li><li>Zack White</li><li>Paul Madick</li></ul><p class="p1"><strong>1) update on Collab Summit schedule</strong> - schedule is up on LF website; license matching guidelines session scheduled for Tuesday, 2-4.  Jilayne will send more detailed info a few days prior to meeting, so everyone can get up to date and ready to roll!</p><p class="p1"><strong>2) website update &nbsp;&amp; feedback on nav naming</strong>: &nbsp;description of new site: redesign and more identifiable, separate wiki. on the new website design there will be a high level link to the LL with a few drop-down items. &nbsp;need some feedback on what to call the sub-nav:</p><p class="p3">License List
<br>- Overview </span><span class="s2">(wil go to this page:&nbsp;<a href="http://spdx.org/content/license-list"><span class="s3">http://spdx.org/content/license-list</span></a>)&nbsp;</span>
<br>- Request New License </span><span class="s2">(will go to this page:&nbsp;<a href="http://spdx.org/content/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added"><span class="s3">http://spdx.org/content/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added</span></a>)</span>
<br>- Matching Guidelines </span>(will go to a finalized version of this page:&nbsp;<a href="http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-match-guidelines"><span class="s5">http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-match-guidelines</span></a>)</p><p class="p1">As for the license inclusion guidelines (what Tom V is working on), I'm thinking instead of going on a separate page, those could go on the overview page (or on the request a new license page?) - thoughts? &nbsp;Anything missing?</p><ul><li>overview page seems like right place for the license inclusion guidelines because it's important info to know from the get-go</li><li>naming links: names okay as suggested; "overview" preferred instead of "about"</li><li>could the url links for the actual license text be case insensitive? (need to ask Gary)&nbsp;</li></ul><p class="p1"><strong>3) additional language to LL description? (see proposed language in italics)</strong></p><p class="p5">The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found open source software licenses for the purposes of being able to easily and efficiently identify such licenses in an SPDX document. The SPDX License List includes a standardized short identifier, full name for each license, vetted license text, other basic information, and a canonical permanent URL. By providing a short identifier, users can efficiently refer to a license without having to redundantly reproduce the full license.</p><p class="p6"><em>By including a license on this list, the SPDX workgroup makes no judgement about its suitability or desirability. In general, the SPDX workgroup is supportive of the community standardizing on a small number of licenses, but this position in no way influences what is on the SPDX License List.&nbsp;The list&nbsp;is meant only to standardize references to the most commonly used, open source-like&nbsp;licenses, not to promote or discourage the use of any license.</em></p><ul><li>do we need this? if so, review of this draft text</li><li>has there been confusion as to this in the past? not that anyone remembers, in terms of it being an issue</li><li>speaks on behalf of the entire SPDX Workgroup - need to vet this with whole group (will need to do so with license inclusion guidelines as well)</li><li>overall support for this statement</li><li>maybe remove second sentence and just use first and third sentence; second sentence takes a position, may not be important for SPDX to take a position - all agreed on this</li><li>remove "most" in third sentence</li><li>for process: have review by whole group of what the whole "overview" page will look like - new part with old part, will need to proof-read whole thing for continutity, etc.&nbsp;</li></ul><p class="p1"><strong>4) update from various project leads</strong>&nbsp;(Fedora list – Paul; license inclusion guidelines – Tom V.)</p><p class="p2">License Inclusion Guidelines (Tom V.) - discussed a few nuances and word-smithing; plan to post a page on the wiki with this and other text for the "overview" webpage - to be reviewed by legal team, then whole group.</p><p class="p2">Fedora list (Paul M.) - progress coming along slowly, hope to have some info in time for Collab Summit... TBD&nbsp;</p><p class="p1"><strong>5) &nbsp;New license request:</strong></p><ol class="ol1"><li class="li7"><strong>Full name of license</strong>:&nbsp; The Code Project Open License 1.02</li><li class="li7"><strong>License identifier</strong>:&nbsp; CPOL-1.02</li><li class="li8"><span class="s2"><strong>License URL</strong>:&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx"><span class="s6">http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx</span></a></span></li><li class="li7"><strong>License text</strong>:&nbsp; see attached</li><li class="li7"><strong>OSI approved</strong>:&nbsp; No</li><li class="li7"><strong>Programs that use this license</strong>:&nbsp; The below programs are used in the wild under CPOL-1.02</li><ul class="ul1"><li class="li8"><span class="s2">A(nother) C++ Registry Wrapper (<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/10729/A-nother-C-Registry-Wrapper"><span class="s6">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/10729/A-nother-C-Registry-Wrapper</span></a>)</span></li><li class="li8"><span class="s2">CppSQLite 3.2 (<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/6343/CppSQLite-C-Wrapper-for-SQLite"><span class="s6">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/6343/CppSQLite-C-Wrapper-for-SQLite</span></a>)</span></li><li class="li8"><span class="s2">Match your String with Wild Card Characters (<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/28051/Match-your-String-with-Wild-Card-Characters"><span class="s6">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/28051/Match-your-String-with-Wild-Card-Characters</span></a>)</span></li><li class="li8"><span class="s2">Tree Control with Columns (<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/23692/Tree-Control-with-Columns"><span class="s6">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/23692/Tree-Control-with-Columns</span></a>)</span></li></ul><li class="li7"><strong>Notes</strong>:&nbsp; Previous versions of the license include CPOL-1.00 and CPOL-1.01; however, I have not seen these used in the wild. The following is a link to the Wikipedia entry for CPOL:&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Project_Open_License"><span class="s5">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Project_Open_License</span></a></li></ol><p class="p1">--&gt; &nbsp;ADD TO LIST: all agreed this should be on there - surprising it wasn't to begin with. &nbsp;decided not to put on earlier versions since they seem to only have minor differences and text does not seem to be available.</p><p class="p1"><strong>4) Guillaume and Daniel's idea and other discussion on list serve of other list identifier (see email)&nbsp;</strong></p><p class="p1">&nbsp;</p><ul><li>idea of a prefix (letter and dash) - not so good, don't want to change structure of short name; but a "domain identifier" is not a bad idea (Daniel's email) - default of SPDX with possibility of identifying another license list</li><li>idea that the "domain.short identifer" could be used in the SPDX file, instead of the generic license reference</li><li>how do we ensure that there aren't duplicates? may end up with different trust levels for different domains - would get worked through over time</li><li>is this really an tech team/extension of the spec question? &nbsp;would mean changing spec to accomodate this</li><li>no one on call who was on this suggestion - what is the use case here? &nbsp;need more info to be able to intelligiently comment on/work through potential issues, etc.</li></ul>