Legal Team/License Expression Review 1 - Revision history

Mgisi: /* The Problem */

2014-03-14T05:35:55Z

‎The Problem

2014-03-13T20:09:02Z

‎Examples

2014-03-07T07:39:37Z

‎Examples

2014-03-07T07:37:51Z

2014-02-12T16:26:51Z

‎Requirements (Proposal/Draft)

2014-02-11T08:26:51Z

‎Requirement (Proposal/Draft)

2014-02-11T08:26:15Z

‎The Problem

2014-02-11T08:25:25Z

‎The Problem

2013-11-20T15:57:21Z

‎Observations/Considerations (with Examples)

2013-11-20T15:56:56Z

‎Observations/Considerations (with Examples)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 == The Problem ==
 SPDX data creators utilize an informally defined mechanism to represent the licensing terms of various different copyrightable software items such as source files, programs, libraries, packages, images, fonts, documentation and so forth. The current mechanism informally consists of the following parts:
 # a license list with standard short names (e.g., constants such as GPL-2.0, BSD-2-Clause )
 # a mechanism to define custom licenses - i,e., licenses not found on the standard license list (e.g., LicenseRef-23)

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 == Examples ==
-Example file notices that are not easily represented using the current license list and just AND/OR can be found here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples
+Example file notices that are not easily represented using the current license list and just AND/OR can be found here: [[FileNoticeExamples | File Notice Examples]]
 == Maintainer ==
 /2013 - Mark Gisi - Contact Mark if you cannot edit this wiki but would like to contribute to the discussion (Mark.Gisi AT WindRiver dot COM).

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 == Examples ==
-Example file notices that are not easily represented using the current license list and just AND/OR can be found [FileNoticeExamples here]
+Example file notices that are not easily represented using the current license list and just AND/OR can be found here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples
 == Maintainer ==
 /2013 - Mark Gisi - Contact Mark if you cannot edit this wiki but would like to contribute to the discussion (Mark.Gisi AT WindRiver dot COM).

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 * Supporting the licensing of images and fonts. For example, does the license list include licenses to cover non source items found in software.
 * Need to give the formal mechanism a formal name (e.g. SPDX Licensing Expression Language (SLEL)) so that it has a more formal existence and standing.
 == Maintainer ==
 /2013 - Mark Gisi - Contact Mark if you cannot edit this wiki but would like to contribute to the discussion (Mark.Gisi AT WindRiver dot COM).

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 * Effectively (and potentially elegantly) represent the myriad of different special exception cases (e.g., GPL-2.0+ with Bison Exception, )
 * Disjunctive license expression support - ability to define a multiple license choices (currently supported by OR operator)
-* Conjunctive License support - ability to o define a situation where license choices (currently supported by OR operator)
+* Conjunctive License support - ability to define a situation where multiple licenses apply (currently supported by AND operator)
 * Provide an effective way to allow one to describe custom licenses (e.g., LicenseRef approach).
 * Supporting the licensing of images and fonts. For example, does the license list include licenses to cover non source items found in software.

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 * What is the right level of description for a package license? What does a package license mean? Should the concluded license be the conjunction of all the licenses found in the package?  What if a package license is not compatible with one of more of the licenses of the files in the package?
-== Requirement (Proposal/Draft) ==
+== Requirements (Proposal/Draft) ==
 Here we present a list of "potential" requirements for a licensing expression language should support. For the sake of completeness, we include requirements that are potentially already supported in the current informal approach. Some potential requirements include:
 * Define the concept of a license expression operator (e.g., OR and AND)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 What is missing is:
 * A formal description of a well thought out license expression language with more rigorous consideration and presentation of how the different components (e.g., operators and operands) can be combined to represent the licensing terms of most copyrightable software items (e.g., programs, images, packages, ...). For example, the creation of a single document that presents a holistic overview of the licensing expression mechanism with many insightful examples of source files, image files, libraries and packages and so forth.
-* A process by which additions, deletions and modifications can be made to the a formal license expression language over time to allow it to formally evolve.
+* A process by which additions, deletions and modifications can be made to the a formal license expression language over time enabling it to formally evolve.
 * A process to test (validate) the current (and future) constructs of a license expression language to ensure they are sufficiently expressive to represent most software licensing situations.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 This section provides a brainstorming blackboard to record a myriad of observations and considerations to collectively help us understand the various issues and facilitate the selection of issues to focus on. Think of it as a broad casting feedback net where a fair amount of stuff caught in the net may be discarded.
-* There are various different GPL special exceptions not represented in the license list. What is the criteria for adding them to the license list?
+* There are various different GPL special exceptions not represented in the license list. What is the criteria for adding them to the license list? What about special exceptions for other licenses.
 * GPL-3.0, a particularly important license, has several additional optional terms, Section 7 (a)-(f), that are not represented in the license list. Should they be represented in the list? Should they be represented as exceptions?
 * What precisely is the GPL-2.0-only issue that Bradley Kuhn has raised. Examples?