Legal Team/Current Projects and Issues - Revision history

Jlovejoy at 21:47, 6 January 2016

2016-01-06T21:47:29Z

Jlovejoy at 23:30, 5 May 2015

2015-05-05T23:30:49Z

Jlovejoy at 23:29, 5 May 2015

2015-05-05T23:29:29Z

Jlovejoy at 19:17, 17 January 2014

2014-01-17T19:17:34Z

Jlovejoy at 19:12, 17 January 2014

2014-01-17T19:12:46Z

Jlovejoy at 19:01, 17 January 2014

2014-01-17T19:01:24Z

Jlovejoy at 00:51, 5 January 2014

2014-01-05T00:51:35Z

Podence at 18:37, 7 November 2013

2013-11-07T18:37:08Z

Jlovejoy at 18:03, 21 May 2013

2013-05-21T18:03:20Z

Jlovejoy at 18:02, 21 May 2013

2013-05-21T18:02:37Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <big>'''SPDX Legal Team projects for 2015'''</big>
-This page will be updated throughout the year.  We will try to not delete items, but mark them as "DONE" to serve as a record of progress over the course of the year.
+We will try to not delete items, but mark them as "DONE" to serve as a record of progress over the course of the year.
 LAST UPDATED: 5 May 2015

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 == Licenses Under Review ==
-Owner: Dennis Clark
+* Owner: Dennis Clark
-Timeframe: On-going
+* Timeframe: On-going
 * New license or exception requests are tracked here:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681
 == Update & Maintain SPDX License List ==
-Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
+* Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
-Timeframe: On-going
+* Timeframe: On-going
 * Add new licenses or make other changes to license list and associated web pages as needed.  Push changes to Git repository and coordinate with Gary to make sure new versions are tagged and uploaded to spdx.org
 == Standard Headers ==
-Owner: ??
+* Owner: ??
-Timeframe: resolve for ??? release
+* Timeframe: resolve for ??? release
 * the move to v2.0 creates some issues for the Standard Header field of the SPDX License List:
 # for the GNU family of licenses, the "or later" determination is made in the header text; pre-2.0, the GNU licenses were listed as two line items each, so the difference in the header (e.g., presence or absence of "or later') was accommodated in the Standard Header field for each license.  As of 2.0 and with the addition of the SPDX License Expression syntax the 'or later' option is exercised via the + operator.  In light of this, what do about the standard header?
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 == Fedora / OSI outstanding issues ==
-Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
+* Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
-Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
+* Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
 # Jabber Open Source License v1.0 – archived text here (http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf) is not the same as the OSI has on their site (it was OSI approved). What do we do about this? need to resolve with OSI (with goal of having on list b/c it was OSI approved and we endeavored to have all OSI licenses on SPDX list, even if old). license text also can be found at: http://code.google.com/p/jabber-net/wiki/FAQ_License
 # various OSI approved (but old or deprecated) licenses don't have corresponding link on OSI site; OSI to update and then SPDX to add link to SPDX-LL - check this??
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 == Fedora / SPDX short identifiers comparison and review ==
-Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
+* Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
-Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
+* Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
 * Need to finish creating spreadsheet with comparison chart and then send to / confer with Tom Calloway at Fedora
 == Composite Licenses ==
-Owner: Sam Ellis?
+* Owner: Sam Ellis?
-Timeframe: future
+* Timeframe: future
 * some licenses currently on the SPDX License List are actually composite licenses or license stacks; should these be broken apart and the SPDX License Expression used? Some discussion on this issue took place earlier this year, see: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-01-08
 * determined that this would require a case-by-case review and should be targeted for post-2.0 timeframe
 == Add a Suggested Header field to SPDX License List ==
-Owner: Mark Gisi
+* Owner: Mark Gisi
-Timeframe: future
+* Timeframe: future
 * proposal to add a field for a recommended header for licenses that do not have a Standard Header. Some discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-04-30
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 === Alignment with other license lists ===
 Coordinate with various other license lists to make sure SPDX has licenses from these lists and check short name matching (or create "translation" document if different)
 ==== FOSSology====

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<big>'''SPDX Legal Team projects for 2014'''</big>
+<big>'''SPDX Legal Team projects for 2015'''</big>
 This page will be updated throughout the year.  We will try to not delete items, but mark them as "DONE" to serve as a record of progress over the course of the year.
-LAST UPDATED: 17 Jan 2014
+LAST UPDATED: 5 May 2015
 == Licenses Under Review ==
-This is an on-going task, which is tracked here:  http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration
+Owner: Dennis Clark
-Owner for updating/tracking: Dennis
+Timeframe: On-going
-However, this list highlights the immediate or more complex tasks that need to be tackled
+* New license or exception requests are tracked here:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681
-=== Various outstanding issues: ===
+== Update & Maintain SPDX License List ==
-# Ruby License issue - Jilayne sent a detailed email to Sam from the Ruby project (also copying the SPDX Legal List and Bob Gobielle of FOSSology) on Jan 4th, with no response as of yet.  See: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/796/
+Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
-## Next step:  Legal Team to come up with definitive naming proposal?
+Timeframe: On-going
-## ''need to resolve immediately and for v1.20 release of License List''
+* Add new licenses or make other changes to license list and associated web pages as needed.  Push changes to Git repository and coordinate with Gary to make sure new versions are tagged and uploaded to spdx.org
-# add older Do What the F*ck You Want license - short identifier issue
-=== Fedora List ===
+== Standard Headers ==
-Owner: Zac
+Owner: ??
-Under review via Google doc, here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 (if you don't have access, just ask)
+Timeframe: resolve for ??? release
-# overriding principle: inclined to add Fedora "good" licenses to SPDX License List, unless very compelling reason not to; and create short-name comparison matrix (to track where short identifiers may not align)
+* the move to v2.0 creates some issues for the Standard Header field of the SPDX License List:
-# we need to step the pace on this - how?
+# for the GNU family of licenses, the "or later" determination is made in the header text; pre-2.0, the GNU licenses were listed as two line items each, so the difference in the header (e.g., presence or absence of "or later') was accommodated in the Standard Header field for each license.  As of 2.0 and with the addition of the SPDX License Expression syntax the 'or later' option is exercised via the + operator.  In light of this, what do about the standard header?
-## ''could we get through "good" list by first week of Feb?''
+# Some Standard Headers have replaceable text. While the License Matching Guidelines are stated to apply to the Standard Headers, there is no markup in the Standard Headers - should there be?
-== License Matching Guidelines - create license templates ==
+== Fedora / OSI outstanding issues ==
-Owner: Jilayne
+Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
-# go through licenses to determine which ones need markup as per License Matching Guidelines and provide information to Daniel so he can create actual template file
+Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
-## ''discuss any issues or questions to this end on Jan 16 and Feb 6 call as needed''
+# Jabber Open Source License v1.0 – archived text here (http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf) is not the same as the OSI has on their site (it was OSI approved). What do we do about this? need to resolve with OSI (with goal of having on list b/c it was OSI approved and we endeavored to have all OSI licenses on SPDX list, even if old). license text also can be found at: http://code.google.com/p/jabber-net/wiki/FAQ_License
-## ''goal to complete by early February and release full set of templates with v1.20 of SPDX License List''
+# various OSI approved (but old or deprecated) licenses don't have corresponding link on OSI site; OSI to update and then SPDX to add link to SPDX-LL - check this??
-== Legal Team recruitment ==
+== Fedora / SPDX short identifiers comparison and review ==
 * how do we get more people involved?
 * who to target and how to reach them?
 * ask for help from LF or via grassroots effort or both? other ideas?
-==License Expression Review & GPL exceptions ==
+=== Alignment with other license lists ===
-Owner: Mark Gisi & Tom Vidal
-* Review of how SPDX spec deals with expressing various licensing scenarios in totality; e.g. using "and" and "or" for conjunctive and disjunctive license; how short identifiers play into this; revisit "or later" / "only" version issue and license exceptions
-* We don't have all or the GPL exceptions - need to add to SPDX-LL. There are also the issue of inconsistencies "in the wild" among named exceptions and actual text (i.e. not all exceptions found called Foo exception have the exact same text; how do we deal with this?)
-* Mark Gisi to schedule special call for initial discussion
-−
 == Alignment with other license lists ==
 Coordinate with various other license lists to make sure SPDX has licenses from these lists and check short name matching (or create "translation" document if different)
 Here are some other lists we may want to look at once Fedora is completed:
-===FOSSology===
+==== FOSSology====
 owner: TBD assigned
 * coordinate with Bob Gobeille, see http://www.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki/MatchSPDXLicenceIDs
-===Gentoo===
+====Gentoo====
 owner: TBD assigned
-===Suse===
+====Suse====
 owner: TBD assigned
-* list found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqPp4y2wyQsbdGQ1V3pRRDg5NEpGVWpubzdRZ0tjUWc (courtesy of Ciaran Farrell from 6/27/12 email list thread)
+* list found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqPp4y2wyQsbdGQ1V3pRRDg5NEpGVWpubzdRZ0tjUWc (courtesy of Ciaran Farrell)
-−
-=== Other "side" projects ===
-−
-== Moving SPDX License List to Git repository ==
-* to work on after release of v1.20
-* Jilayne to coordinate with Gary
-−
-== OSI outstanding issues ==
-# zlib/ libpng license clarification
-# Jabber Open Source License v1.0 – archived text here (http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf) is not the same as the OSI has on their site (it was OSI approved). What do we do about this? need to resolve with OSI (with goal of having on list b/c it was OSI approved and we endeavored to have all OSI licenses on SPDX list, even if old). license text also can be found at: http://code.google.com/p/jabber-net/wiki/FAQ_License
-# various OSI approved (but old or deprecated) licenses don't have corresponding link on OSI site; OSI to update and then SPDX to add link to SPDX-LL - check this??
-−
-== License Ref short identifiers ==
-better way to identify licenses not on SPDX-LL (spec issue) or to reference other external license list that have greater set of licenses than SPDX-LL
-== Recommendations or guidance on how to best determine license for a particular file==
+=== Recommendations or guidance on how to best determine license for a particular file ===
 'how to identify the license for an open source project - ex. Within the file versus whether there's a copying file on top of the directory ? provide guidance/suggstion (industry practice?) that license in the file is more determinate than the license in the directoryShould the legal group aggregate industry best practices and come up with a group of guidelines and provide some influence on that?
 [[Category:Legal]]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 === Various outstanding issues: ===
-# Ruby License issue - Jilayne sent a detailed email to Sam from the Ruby project (also copying the SPDX Legal List and Bob Gobielle of FOSSology) on Jan 4th, with no response as of yet.  Next step:  Legal Team to come up with definitive naming proposal?
+# Ruby License issue - Jilayne sent a detailed email to Sam from the Ruby project (also copying the SPDX Legal List and Bob Gobielle of FOSSology) on Jan 4th, with no response as of yet.  See: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/796/
 ## ''need to resolve immediately and for v1.20 release of License List''
 # add older Do What the F*ck You Want license - short identifier issue
@@ Line 17: / Line 18: @@
 === Fedora List ===
 Owner: Zac
-Under review via Google doc
+Under review via Google doc, here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 (if you don't have access, just ask)
 # overriding principle: inclined to add Fedora "good" licenses to SPDX License List, unless very compelling reason not to; and create short-name comparison matrix (to track where short identifiers may not align)
 # we need to step the pace on this - how?

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 === Various outstanding issues: ===
 # Ruby License issue - Jilayne sent a detailed email to Sam from the Ruby project (also copying the SPDX Legal List and Bob Gobielle of FOSSology) on Jan 4th, with no response as of yet.  Next step:  Legal Team to come up with definitive naming proposal?
-## need to resolve immediately and for v1.20 release of License List
+## ''need to resolve immediately and for v1.20 release of License List''
 # add older Do What the F*ck You Want license - short identifier issue
 === Fedora List ===
- Owner: Zac
+Owner: Zac
 Under review via Google doc
-## overriding principle: inclined to add Fedora "good" licenses to SPDX License List, unless very compelling reason not to; and create short-name comparison matrix (to track where short identifiers may not align)
+# overriding principle: inclined to add Fedora "good" licenses to SPDX License List, unless very compelling reason not to; and create short-name comparison matrix (to track where short identifiers may not align)
-## we need to step the pace on this - how?
+# we need to step the pace on this - how?
-** could we get through "good" list by first week of Feb?
+## ''could we get through "good" list by first week of Feb?''
 == License Matching Guidelines - create license templates ==
 Owner: Jilayne
 # go through licenses to determine which ones need markup as per License Matching Guidelines and provide information to Daniel so he can create actual template file
-## discuss any issues or questions to this end on Jan 16 and Feb 6 call as needed
+## ''discuss any issues or questions to this end on Jan 16 and Feb 6 call as needed''
-## goal to complete by early February and release full set of templates with v1.20 of SPDX License List
+## ''goal to complete by early February and release full set of templates with v1.20 of SPDX License List''
 == Legal Team recruitment ==
@@ Line 44: / Line 45: @@
 ===FOSSology===
 owner: TBD assigned
-*coordinate with Bob Gobeille, see http://www.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki/MatchSPDXLicenceIDs
+* coordinate with Bob Gobeille, see http://www.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki/MatchSPDXLicenceIDs
 ===Gentoo===
@@ Line 51: / Line 52: @@
 ===Suse===
 owner: TBD assigned
-*list found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqPp4y2wyQsbdGQ1V3pRRDg5NEpGVWpubzdRZ0tjUWc (courtesy of Ciaran Farrell from 6/27/12 email list thread)
+* list found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqPp4y2wyQsbdGQ1V3pRRDg5NEpGVWpubzdRZ0tjUWc (courtesy of Ciaran Farrell from 6/27/12 email list thread)
 === Other "side" projects ===
@@ Line 59: / Line 60: @@
 * Jilayne to coordinate with Gary
-==OSI outstanding issues==
+== OSI outstanding issues ==
 # zlib/ libpng license clarification
 # Jabber Open Source License v1.0 – archived text here (http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf) is not the same as the OSI has on their site (it was OSI approved). What do we do about this? need to resolve with OSI (with goal of having on list b/c it was OSI approved and we endeavored to have all OSI licenses on SPDX list, even if old). license text also can be found at: http://code.google.com/p/jabber-net/wiki/FAQ_License
 # various OSI approved (but old or deprecated) licenses don't have corresponding link on OSI site; OSI to update and then SPDX to add link to SPDX-LL - check this??
 == License Ref short identifiers ==
 ==License Ref short identifiers==
 better way to identify licenses not on SPDX-LL (spec issue) or to reference other external license list that have greater set of licenses than SPDX-LL

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-LAST UPDATED: 25 April 2013
+LAST UPDATED: 3 Jan 2014
-SPDX Legal Team projects for 2013
+SPDX Legal Team projects for 2014
-−
-== License List requests/additions tracking page ==
-owner: Jack Manbeck (goal to get this up and current by end of May)
-# create wiki page with table for tracking, with relevant/appropriate columns
-# propagate with recent and outstanding requests
-# update going forward
-−
-==Review process for requesting a new license webpage==
-owner: Jason Buttara (first pass by 5/3, team to review at 5/10 meeting --> '''DONE''' (team reviewed, posted on webpage)
-−
-==OSI outstanding issues==
-owner: Jilayne
-# various OSI approved (but old or deprecated) licenses don't have corresponding link on OSI site; OSI to update and then SPDX to add link to SPDX-LL
-# Artistic license issue
-# futher clarification on a few previous issues (were APSL-1.0, APSL-1.1, and GPL-2.0 ever approved?)
-# zlib/ libpng license clarification
-# Jabber Open Source License v1.0 – archived text here (http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf) is not the same as the OSI has on their site (it was OSI approved). What do we do about this? need to resolve with OSI (with goal of having on list b/c it was OSI approved and we endeavored to have all OSI licenses on SPDX list, even if old). license text also can be found at: http://code.google.com/p/jabber-net/wiki/FAQ_License
 ==License Matching Guidelines - implement markup==
-once final method for markup has been decided upon, we will need to go through all licenses on current list and create appropriate markup files for each.  Legal team will divvy up work and may ask for help from technical team as well.  We will invariably find issues that will need to be discussed along the way - using the legal team bi-weekly calls for such discusssion
+owner: Jilayne
+* create appropriate markup files for all licenses on current list (Jilayne doing first pass)
-==GPL exceptions ==
+* discuss any issues that arise on first call or two of 2014 with goal of releasing SPDX License List next version with this task completed by end of January.
-owner: Tom Vidal  (goal to have this reasonably done by end of June)
-* We don't have them all and there are also the issue of inconsistencies "in the wild" among named exceptions and actual text (i.e. not all exceptions found called Foo exception have the exact same text; how do we deal with this?)
 ==Community outreach and list coordination==
@@ Line 31: / Line 12: @@
 ===Fedora license list===
-owner: Paul Madick (goal to have first pass for Legal Team to begin reviewing by mid-June)
+owner: Paul Madick
-*will need to check lists for discrepancies, i.e. are there licenses on Fedora list that are not on SPDX-LL and if so, decide to add; also need to create short-name matching matrix due to Fedora using different type of categorization for its short names
+* will need to check lists for discrepancies, i.e. are there licenses on Fedora list that are not on SPDX-LL and if so, decide to add; also need to create short-name matching matrix due to Fedora using different type of categorization for its short names
 ===FOSSology===
@@ Line 45: / Line 27: @@
 *list found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqPp4y2wyQsbdGQ1V3pRRDg5NEpGVWpubzdRZ0tjUWc (courtesy of Ciaran Farrell from 6/27/12 email list thread)
-==Website updates==
+==License Expression Review & GPL exceptions ==
-owner: Jilayne
+owner: Mark Gisi & Tom Vidal
-# remove wiki pages where final website page has been moved/created - '''DONE''' )for License Inclusion Guidelines and moved background info to Past Decisions section)
+* Review of how SPDX spec deals with expressing various licensing scenarios in totality; e.g. using "and" and "or" for conjunctive and disjunctive license; how short identifiers play into this; revisit "or later" / "only" version issue and license exceptions
-# update license matching guidelines (currently in two places - on webpage and on wiki - remove from wiki and only update on webpage) - '''UPDATED''' on main page, with suggestions from 4/16 Collab Summit meeting; used generic reference to "mark-up" for now - will need to update this, once exact implementation of mark-up has been decided upon.
+* We don't have all or the GPL exceptions - need to add to SPDX-LL. There are also the issue of inconsistencies "in the wild" among named exceptions and actual text (i.e. not all exceptions found called Foo exception have the exact same text; how do we deal with this?)
-# formatting on overview page - '''DONE'''
 ==License Ref short identifiers==