Legal Team/Minutes/2010-09-24 - Revision history

MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

2013-03-05T17:40:41Z

Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Jlovejoy at 19:28, 16 December 2011

2011-12-16T19:28:14Z

Jlovejoy at 19:25, 16 December 2011

2011-12-16T19:25:08Z

Jlovejoy at 19:24, 16 December 2011

2011-12-16T19:24:45Z

Jlovejoy at 19:22, 16 December 2011

2011-12-16T19:22:19Z

K.stewart at 15:34, 12 November 2010

2010-11-12T15:34:03Z

New page

SPDX License Meeting Notes – 9/24/2010 
 
Attendance 
Kate Stewart 
Kim Weins (OpenLogic 
Dave McLoughlin (OpenLogic) 
Peter Williams (OpenLogic) 
Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic) 
Manny Wool (BlackDuck) 
Mike Herzog (NexB) 
Jeff Luszcz (Palamida) 
Dan German 
 
Notes: 
<ol><li>Kate
opened with a review of the approach to use a table approach as proposed by Tom Calloway at LinuxCon for
licenses with one link per license.  The group was in agreement.
</li><li>Kim
asked If anyone had looked at layout from an RDF side to see if there
were any issues, Peter responded that no one had reviewed it yet. Peter
volunteered to review it when it was finalized.
</li><li>Kate proposed the next order of business was: 
<ol><li>setting up a couple examples and reviewing the layout
</li><li>look for volunteers to propagate the licenses in the wiki 
</li></ol></li><li>Kim noted that she thought there were 2 broader issues first 
<ol><li>Creating
a set of licenses so we can know what the mapping looks like (assuming
the need for a minimum set for release of the first spec)
</li><li>Creating a process for adding licenses on an interim basis after the initial minimum set is created 
</li></ol></li><li>Kim
proposed a minimum initial set of licenses tied to the spec.  Mike H
and others argued that a set of licenses should not be tied to a spec as a
minimum requirement for using the spec.  The group was in agreement. 
<ol><li>Mike
H proposed the list of licenses be an “appendix” to the spec and we
strongly recommend people use the licenses included in the appendix.
 The group strong agreed.  Kate commented, that if we create a standard
set recognized by the group then the community will most likely get
behind it an support.   Those conforming to SPDX should recognize the initial set published at least, but not limit to just the set ready at time of initial publishing. 
</li></ol></li><li>Versioning.
 Group essentially agreed that the list itself would not have a version
rather the version would change when there is a change in “vocabulary”
</li><li>Comments
field.  The group discussed the concept of a comments field proposed by
Tom Calloway.  The group agreed to not use the field for no factual
information or opinion-based comments. 
<ol><li>Kate called for a volunteer to document guidelines for populating the comments field.
</li><li>Jilayne Lovejoy volunteered to take the task 
</li></ol></li><li>Kim
proposed the concept of a subcommittee to manage licenses.
 Responsibilities would include: discuss which licenses to add, fill out
templates, “approve” licenses to add to queue, manage approval process
to add licenses, move licenses into list when approved.  Note: group
agreed that “approved” did not mean that a license met some minimum
requirements, rather that it was appropriate for the list.
</li><li> Kim proposed 2 ideas for the subcommittee role/process, that need further discussion. 
<ol><li>Committee owns the complete process, they choose, approve and add licenses
</li><li>The group at large votes on licenses to add, the sub-committee approves and adds
</li></ol></li><li>Kate volunteered to work with Tom Calloway to finalize template and work with the RDF group to make sure it will be able to link together.
</li><li>Jilayne volunteered to marshal the license list
</li><li>Group discussed and agreed to meet monthly to review license issues. </li></ol>

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 5 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~<p><span style~~=~~"font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style~~=~~"font-size: 11pt;">SPDX License Meeting Notes – 9/24/2010<br /> <br /> Attendance<br />~~ Kate Stewart~~<br />~~ Kim Weins (OpenLogic~~<br />~~ Dave McLoughlin (OpenLogic)~~<br /> <span id="lw_1289575433_1" class="yshortcuts" style="border-bottom: 2px dotted #366388; cursor: pointer; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">~~Peter Williams~~</span>~~ (OpenLogic)~~<br />~~ Jilayne ~~<span id="lw_1289575433_2" class="yshortcuts">~~Lovejoy~~</span>~~ (OpenLogic)~~<br />~~ Manny Wool (BlackDuck)~~<br />~~ Mike Herzog (NexB)~~<br />~~ Jeff Luszcz (Palamida)~~<br />~~ Dan German~~<br /> <br />~~ Notes~~:<br /> </span></span></p><ol><li><span style~~=~~"font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style~~=~~"font-size: 11pt;">~~Kate opened with a review of the approach to use a table approach as proposed by Tom Calloway at LinuxCon for licenses with one link per license. ~~ ~~The group was in agreement. ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Kim asked If anyone had looked at layout from an RDF side to see if there were any issues, Peter responded that no one had reviewed it yet. Peter volunteered to review it when it was finalized. ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Kate proposed the next order of business was:~~<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~setting up a couple examples and reviewing the layout ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~look for volunteers to propagate the licenses in the wiki~~<br /> </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Kim noted that she thought there were 2 broader issues first~~<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Creating a set of licenses so we can know what the mapping looks like (assuming the need for a minimum set for release of the first spec) ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Creating a process for adding licenses on an interim basis after the initial minimum set is created~~<br /> </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Kim proposed a minimum initial set of licenses tied to the spec. ~~ ~~Mike H and others argued that a set of licenses should not be tied to a spec as a minimum requirement for using the spec. ~~ ~~The group was in agreement.~~<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Mike H proposed the list of licenses be an “appendix” to the spec and we strongly recommend people use the licenses included in the appendix. ~~ ~~The group strong agreed. ~~ ~~Kate commented, that if we create a standard set recognized by the group then the community will most likely get behind it an support. ~~ ~~ Those conforming to SPDX should recognize the initial set published at least, but not limit to just the set ready at time of initial publishing. ~~<br /> </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Versioning. ~~ ~~Group essentially agreed that the list itself would not have a version rather the version would change when there is a change in “vocabulary” ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Comments field. ~~ ~~The group discussed the concept of a comments field proposed by Tom Calloway. ~~ ~~The group agreed to not use the field for no factual information or opinion-based comments. ~~<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Kate called for a volunteer to document guidelines for populating the comments field. ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Jilayne Lovejoy volunteered to take the task~~<br /> </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Kim proposed the concept of a subcommittee to manage licenses. ~~ ~~Responsibilities would include: discuss which licenses to add, fill out templates, “approve” licenses to add to queue, manage approval process to add licenses, move licenses into list when approved. ~~ ~~Note: group agreed that “approved” did not mean that a license met some minimum requirements, rather that it was appropriate for the list. ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~ Kim proposed 2 ideas for the subcommittee role/process, that need further discussion.~~<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Committee owns the complete process, they choose, approve and add licenses ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~The group at large votes on licenses to add, the sub-committee approves and adds ~~</span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Kate volunteered to work with Tom Calloway to finalize template and work with the RDF group to make sure it will be able to link together. ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Jilayne volunteered to marshal the license list ~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">~~Group discussed and agreed to meet monthly to review license issues. ~~</span></span></li></ol>~~	+	== Attendees ==
		+
		+	* Kate Stewart
		+	* Kim Weins (OpenLogic)
		+	* Dave McLoughlin (OpenLogic)
		+	* Peter Williams (OpenLogic)
		+	* Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)
		+	* Manny Wool (BlackDuck)
		+	* Mike Herzog (NexB)
		+	* Jeff Luszcz (Palamida)
		+	* Dan German
		+
		+	== Notes ==
		+
		+	* Kate opened with a review of the approach to use a table approach as proposed by Tom Calloway at LinuxCon for licenses with one link per license. The group was in agreement.
		+	* Kim asked If anyone had looked at layout from an RDF side to see if there were any issues, Peter responded that no one had reviewed it yet. Peter volunteered to review it when it was finalized.
		+	* Kate proposed the next order of business was:
		+	** setting up a couple examples and reviewing the layout
		+	** look for volunteers to propagate the licenses in the wiki
		+	* Kim noted that she thought there were 2 broader issues first
		+	** Creating a set of licenses so we can know what the mapping looks like (assuming the need for a minimum set for release of the first spec)
		+	* Creating a process for adding licenses on an interim basis after the initial minimum set is created
		+	* Kim proposed a minimum initial set of licenses tied to the spec. Mike H and others argued that a set of licenses should not be tied to a spec as a minimum requirement for using the spec. The group was in agreement.
		+	* Mike H proposed the list of licenses be an “appendix” to the spec and we strongly recommend people use the licenses included in the appendix. The group strong agreed. Kate commented, that if we create a standard set recognized by the group then the community will most likely get behind it an support. Those conforming to SPDX should recognize the initial set published at least, but not limit to just the set ready at time of initial publishing.
		+	* Versioning. Group essentially agreed that the list itself would not have a version rather the version would change when there is a change in “vocabulary”
		+	* Comments field. The group discussed the concept of a comments field proposed by Tom Calloway. The group agreed to not use the field for no factual information or opinion-based comments.
		+	** Kate called for a volunteer to document guidelines for populating the comments field.
		+	** Jilayne Lovejoy volunteered to take the task
		+	* Kim proposed the concept of a subcommittee to manage licenses. Responsibilities would include: discuss which licenses to add, fill out templates, “approve” licenses to add to queue, manage approval process to add licenses, move licenses into list when approved. Note: group agreed that “approved” did not mean that a license met some minimum requirements, rather that it was appropriate for the list.
		+	* Kim proposed 2 ideas for the subcommittee role/process, that need further discussion.
		+	** Committee owns the complete process, they choose, approve and add licenses
		+	** The group at large votes on licenses to add, the sub-committee approves and adds
		+	* Kate volunteered to work with Tom Calloway to finalize template and work with the RDF group to make sure it will be able to link together.
		+	* Jilayne volunteered to marshal the license list
		+	* Group discussed and agreed to meet monthly to review license issues.
		+
		+	[[Category:Legal\|Minutes]]
		+	[[Category:Minutes]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<p><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">SPDX License Meeting Notes – 9/24/2010<br />
+<p><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">SPDX License Meeting Notes – 9/24/2010<br /> <br /> Attendance<br /> Kate Stewart<br /> Kim Weins (OpenLogic<br /> Dave McLoughlin (OpenLogic)<br /> <span id="lw_1289575433_1" class="yshortcuts" style="border-bottom: 2px dotted #366388; cursor: pointer; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">Peter Williams</span> (OpenLogic)<br /> Jilayne <span id="lw_1289575433_2" class="yshortcuts">Lovejoy</span> (OpenLogic)<br /> Manny Wool (BlackDuck)<br /> Mike Herzog (NexB)<br /> Jeff Luszcz (Palamida)<br /> Dan German<br /> <br /> Notes:<br /> </span></span></p><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kate opened with a review of the approach to use a table approach as proposed by Tom Calloway at LinuxCon for licenses with one link per license. &nbsp;The group was in agreement. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kim asked If anyone had looked at layout from an RDF side to see if there were any issues, Peter responded that no one had reviewed it yet. Peter volunteered to review it when it was finalized. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kate proposed the next order of business was:<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">setting up a couple examples and reviewing the layout </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">look for volunteers to propagate the licenses in the wiki<br /> </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kim noted that she thought there were 2 broader issues first<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Creating a set of licenses so we can know what the mapping looks like (assuming the need for a minimum set for release of the first spec) </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Creating a process for adding licenses on an interim basis after the initial minimum set is created<br /> </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kim proposed a minimum initial set of licenses tied to the spec. &nbsp;Mike H and others argued that a set of licenses should not be tied to a spec as a minimum requirement for using the spec. &nbsp;The group was in agreement.<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Mike H proposed the list of licenses be an “appendix” to the spec and we strongly recommend people use the licenses included in the appendix. &nbsp;The group strong agreed. &nbsp;Kate commented, that if we create a standard set recognized by the group then the community will most likely get behind it an support. &nbsp; Those conforming to SPDX should recognize the initial set published at least, but not limit to just the set ready at time of initial publishing. <br /> </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Versioning. &nbsp;Group essentially agreed that the list itself would not have a version rather the version would change when there is a change in “vocabulary” </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Comments field. &nbsp;The group discussed the concept of a comments field proposed by Tom Calloway. &nbsp;The group agreed to not use the field for no factual information or opinion-based comments. <br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kate called for a volunteer to document guidelines for populating the comments field. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Jilayne Lovejoy volunteered to take the task<br /> </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kim proposed the concept of a subcommittee to manage licenses. &nbsp;Responsibilities would include: discuss which licenses to add, fill out templates, “approve” licenses to add to queue, manage approval process to add licenses, move licenses into list when approved. &nbsp;Note: group agreed that “approved” did not mean that a license met some minimum requirements, rather that it was appropriate for the list. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> Kim proposed 2 ideas for the subcommittee role/process, that need further discussion.<br /> </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Committee owns the complete process, they choose, approve and add licenses </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The group at large votes on licenses to add, the sub-committee approves and adds </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kate volunteered to work with Tom Calloway to finalize template and work with the RDF group to make sure it will be able to link together. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Jilayne volunteered to marshal the license list </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Group discussed and agreed to meet monthly to review license issues. </span></span></li></ol>
 <br />
 Attendance<br />
 Kate Stewart<br />
 Kim Weins (OpenLogic<br />
 Dave McLoughlin (OpenLogic)<br />
 <span id="lw_1289575433_1" class="yshortcuts" style="border-bottom: 2px dotted #366388; cursor: pointer; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">Peter Williams</span> (OpenLogic)<br />
 Jilayne <span id="lw_1289575433_2" class="yshortcuts">Lovejoy</span> (OpenLogic)<br />
 Manny Wool (BlackDuck)<br />
 Mike Herzog (NexB)<br />
 Jeff Luszcz (Palamida)<br />
 Dan German<br />
 <br />
 Notes:<br />
 </span></span></p><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kate
- opened with a review of the approach to use a table approach as proposed by Tom Calloway at LinuxCon for
 licenses with one link per license. &nbsp;The group was in agreement.
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kim
- asked If anyone had looked at layout from an RDF side to see if there
 were any issues, Peter responded that no one had reviewed it yet. Peter
 volunteered to review it when it was finalized.
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kate proposed the next order of business was:<br />
 </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">setting up a couple examples and reviewing the layout
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">look for volunteers to propagate the licenses in the wiki<br />
 </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kim noted that she thought there were 2 broader issues first<br />
 </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Creating
- a set of licenses so we can know what the mapping looks like (assuming
 the need for a minimum set for release of the first spec)
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Creating a process for adding licenses on an interim basis after the initial minimum set is created<br />
 </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kim
- proposed a minimum initial set of licenses tied to the spec. &nbsp;Mike H
 and others argued that a set of licenses should not be tied to a spec as a
 minimum requirement for using the spec. &nbsp;The group was in agreement.<br />
 </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Mike
- H proposed the list of licenses be an “appendix” to the spec and we
 strongly recommend people use the licenses included in the appendix.
 &nbsp;The group strong agreed. &nbsp;Kate commented, that if we create a standard
 set recognized by the group then the community will most likely get
 behind it an support. &nbsp; Those conforming to SPDX should recognize the initial set published at least, but not limit to just the set ready at time of initial publishing. <br />
 </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Versioning.
- &nbsp;Group essentially agreed that the list itself would not have a version
- rather the version would change when there is a change in “vocabulary”
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Comments
- field. &nbsp;The group discussed the concept of a comments field proposed by
- Tom Calloway. &nbsp;The group agreed to not use the field for no factual
 information or opinion-based comments. <br />
 </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kate called for a volunteer to document guidelines for populating the comments field.
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Jilayne Lovejoy volunteered to take the task<br />
 </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kim
- proposed the concept of a subcommittee to manage licenses.
 &nbsp;Responsibilities would include: discuss which licenses to add, fill out
- templates, “approve” licenses to add to queue, manage approval process
 to add licenses, move licenses into list when approved. &nbsp;Note: group
 agreed that “approved” did not mean that a license met some minimum
 requirements, rather that it was appropriate for the list.
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> Kim proposed 2 ideas for the subcommittee role/process, that need further discussion.<br />
 </span></span><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Committee owns the complete process, they choose, approve and add licenses
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The group at large votes on licenses to add, the sub-committee approves and adds
 </span></span></li></ol></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kate volunteered to work with Tom Calloway to finalize template and work with the RDF group to make sure it will be able to link together.
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Jilayne volunteered to marshal the license list
 </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Group discussed and agreed to meet monthly to review license issues. </span></span></li></ol>

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:28, 16 December 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:25, 16 December 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:24, 16 December 2011
(No difference)