Legal Team/Minutes/2011-01-14 - Revision history

MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

2013-03-05T18:48:21Z

Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Jlovejoy at 19:31, 16 December 2011

2011-12-16T19:31:35Z

Rockett at 17:20, 7 February 2011

2011-02-07T17:20:18Z

Rockett at 17:27, 20 January 2011

2011-01-20T17:27:51Z

Rockett at 15:57, 20 January 2011

2011-01-20T15:57:51Z

New page

Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes - 20110114 SPDX Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes – 14-January-2011 Attendees:Esteban Rockett (Motorola) Kate Stewart (Canonical)Kim Weins (OpenLogic)Peter Williams (OpenLogic)Scott Peterson (HP)Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)Tom Incorvia (Microfocus)Michael Herzog (NexB)  Minutes: - This meeting was a continuation of "Item E" from the regular Legal Workstream Meeting of 12-Jan-2011.- Subject to refining terminology (where attendees will email terminology/minor revisions or do so on Bugzilla), attendees agreed to the following: ***(minor edits consistent with meeting done below by Rockett) Proposal:  section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec willbecome 3 fields: 5.3a Asserted/Concluded License 5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the licensegoverning the file if it can be determined.  If no licenseinformation can be determined, the license is denoted as"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard shortform names.   See Appendix I for standardized license shortforms.  If a Asserted/Concluded License is not one of thestandardized license short forms, this field must contain areference to the full licenses text included in this SPDXfile in section 4.  If more than one license is asserted/concluded inthe file, then each should be listed.  If any of theasserted/concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"license. 5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniformmethod to refer to the license that is determined torepresent the file with specificity to eliminate any licenseconfusion.  For example, the 3 clause BSD would have adifferent license identifier then the 4 clause BSD. 5.3a.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one. 5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:" 5.3a.5 RDF: TBD  (include Disjunctive form here) 5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier inAppendix I> | "FullLicense"-N 5.3a.7 Example:LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0  5.3b Detected License(s) 5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license recited in the file, if any.  It will be explicitfrom the file header or other information found in thefile's source code.    If no license information is foundit should be denoted as "NotSpecified".  If no licenseinformation can be determined, the license is denoted as"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard shortform names.   See Appendix I for standardized license shortforms.  If a Detected License is not one of thestandardized license short forms, this field must contain areference to the full licenses text included in this SPDXfile in section 4.  If more than one license is detected inthe file, then each should be listed.  If any of thedetected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"license. 5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniformmethod to refer to each license with specificity toeliminate any license confusion.  For example, the 3 clauseBSD would have a different license identifier then the 4clause BSD. 5.3b.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one or many. 5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:" 5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, ifmultiple many should be specified ) 5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier inAppendix I> | "FullLicense"-N 5.3b.7 Example:LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2  5.3c License Comments 5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed descriptionof the analysis and any relevent background references thatwent in to making the asserted license for a file, if theasserted/concluded license does not match the detected license thatthe person creating the SPDX file wants to share with thereviewers. 5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to providetechnical readers/reviewers with a detailed technicalexplanation of how the asserted license was determined if itdoes not match the detected license. 5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance 5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:" 5.3c.5 RDF: TBD 5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can spanmultiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with</text>. 5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> Theasserted license was taken from the package level that thefile was included in.  </text>***

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 5 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~<p> </p><p><strong>Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes - 20110114</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>SPDX Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes – 14-January-2011</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>~~Attendees~~:</strong></p><p>~~Esteban Rockett (Motorola)~~</p><p> Kate~~ Stewart (Canonical)~~</p><p>~~Kim Weins (OpenLogic)~~</p><p>~~Peter Williams (OpenLogic)~~</p><p>~~Scott Peterson (HP)~~</p><p>~~Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)~~</p><p>~~Tom Incorvia (Microfocus)~~</p><p>~~Michael Herzog (NexB)~~</p><p>~~Phil Odence (BlackDuck)~~</p><p> </p><p><strong>~~Minutes~~:</strong></p><p> </p><p>-~~ This meeting was a continuation of "Item E" from the regular Legal Workstream Meeting of 12-Jan-2011.~~</p><p>-~~ Subject to refining terminology (where attendees will email terminology/minor revisions or do so on Bugzilla), attendees agreed to the following:~~</p><p> </p><p>*</p><p>~~(minor edits consistent with meeting done below by Rockett)~~</p><p> </p><p>~~Proposal: ~~ ~~section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec will~~</p><p>~~become 3 fields:~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3a Asserted/Concluded License~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license~~</p><p>~~governing the file if it can be determined. ~~ ~~If no license~~</p><p>~~information can be determined, the license is denoted as~~</p><p>~~"Unknown". ~~ ~~ The licenses should use the standard short~~</p><p>~~form names. ~~ ~~ See Appendix I for standardized license short~~</p><p>~~forms. ~~ ~~If a Asserted/Concluded License is not one of the~~</p><p>~~standardized license short forms, this field must contain a~~</p><p>~~reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX~~</p><p>~~file in section 4. ~~ ~~If more than one license is asserted/concluded in~~</p><p>~~the file, then each should be listed. ~~ ~~If any of the~~</p><p>~~asserted/concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,~~</p><p>~~then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"~~</p><p>~~license.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform~~</p><p>~~method to refer to the license that is determined to~~</p><p>~~represent the file with specificity to eliminate any license~~</p><p>~~confusion. ~~ ~~For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a~~</p><p>~~different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3a.3 Cardinality: ~~ ~~Mandatory, one.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:"~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3a.5 RDF: TBD ~~ ~~(include Disjunctive form here)~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in~~</p><p>~~Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3a.7 Example:~~</p><p>~~LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0~~</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>~~5.3b Detected License(s)~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license recited~~ </p><p>~~in the file, if any. ~~ ~~It will be explicit~~</p><p>~~from the file header or other information found in the~~</p><p>~~file's source code. ~~   ~~If no license information is found~~</p><p>~~it should be denoted as "NotSpecified". ~~ ~~If no license~~</p><p>~~information can be determined, the license is denoted as~~</p><p>~~"Unknown". ~~ ~~ The licenses should use the standard short~~</p><p>~~form names. ~~ ~~ See Appendix I for standardized license short~~</p><p>~~forms. ~~ ~~If a Detected License is not one of the~~</p><p>~~standardized license short forms, this field must contain a~~</p><p>~~reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX~~</p><p>~~file in section 4. ~~ ~~If more than one license is detected in~~</p><p>~~the file, then each should be listed. ~~ ~~If any of the~~</p><p>~~detected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,~~</p><p>~~then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"~~</p><p>~~license.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform~~</p><p>~~method to refer to each license with specificity to~~</p><p>~~eliminate any license confusion. ~~ ~~For example, the 3 clause~~</p><p>~~BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4~~</p><p>~~clause BSD.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3b.3 Cardinality: ~~ ~~Mandatory, one or many.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:"~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if~~</p><p>~~multiple many should be specified )~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in~~</p><p>~~Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3b.7 Example:~~</p><p>~~LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0~~</p><p>~~LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2~~</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>~~5.3c License Comments~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description~~</p><p>~~of the analysis and any relevent background references that~~</p><p>~~went in to making the asserted license for a file, if the~~</p><p>~~asserted/concluded license does not match the detected license that~~</p><p>~~the person creating the SPDX file wants to share with the~~</p><p>~~reviewers.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3c.2 Intent: ~~ ~~Here, the intent is to provide~~</p><p>~~technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical~~</p><p>~~explanation of how the asserted license was determined if it~~</p><p>~~does not match the detected license.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:"~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3c.5 RDF: TBD~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span~~</p><p>~~multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with~~</p><p>~~</text>.~~</p><p> </p><p>~~5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The~~</p><p>~~asserted license was taken from the package level that the~~</p><p>~~file was included in. ~~ ~~</text>~~</p><p>*</p><p> </p>~~	+	== Attendees ==
		+
		+	* Esteban Rockett (Motorola)
		+	* Kate Stewart (Canonical)
		+	* Kim Weins (OpenLogic)
		+	* Peter Williams (OpenLogic)
		+	* Scott Peterson (HP)
		+	* Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)
		+	* Tom Incorvia (Microfocus)
		+	* Michael Herzog (NexB)
		+	* Phil Odence (BlackDuck)
		+
		+	== Minutes ==
		+
		+	* This meeting was a continuation of "Item E" from the regular Legal Workstream Meeting of [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2011-01-12\|12-Jan-2011]].
		+	* Subject to refining terminology (where attendees will email terminology/minor revisions or do so on Bugzilla), attendees agreed to the following:
		+
		+	(minor edits consistent with meeting done below by Rockett)
		+
		+	Proposal: section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec will become 3 fields:
		+
		+	5.3a Asserted/Concluded License
		+
		+	5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license governing the file if it can be determined. If no license information can be determined, the license is denoted as "Unknown". The licenses should use the standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms. If a Asserted/Concluded License is not one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one license is asserted/concluded in the file, then each should be listed. If any of the asserted/concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses, then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive" license.
		+
		+	5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform method to refer to the license that is determined to represent the file with specificity to eliminate any license confusion. For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD.
		+
		+	5.3a.3 Cardinality: Mandatory, one.
		+
		+	5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:"
		+
		+	5.3a.5 RDF: TBD (include Disjunctive form here)
		+
		+	5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in
		+
		+	Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N
		+
		+	5.3a.7 Example:
		+
		+	LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0
		+
		+	5.3b Detected License(s)
		+
		+	5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license recited in the file, if any. It will be explicit from the file header or other information found in the file's source code. If no license information is found it should be denoted as "NotSpecified". If no license information can be determined, the license is denoted as "Unknown". The licenses should use the standard short form names. See Appendix I for standardized license short forms. If a Detected License is not one of the standardized license short forms, this field must contain a reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX file in section 4. If more than one license is detected in the file, then each should be listed. If any of the detected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses, then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive" license.
		+
		+	5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform method to refer to each license with specificity to eliminate any license confusion. For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD.
		+
		+	5.3b.3 Cardinality: Mandatory, one or many.
		+
		+	5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:"
		+
		+	5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if multiple many should be specified)
		+
		+	5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in
		+
		+	Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N
		+
		+	5.3b.7 Example:
		+
		+	LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0
		+
		+	LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2
		+
		+	5.3c License Comments
		+
		+	5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description of the analysis and any relevent background references that went in to making the asserted license for a file, if the asserted/concluded license does not match the detected license that the person creating the SPDX file wants to share with the reviewers.
		+
		+	5.3c.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to provide technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical explanation of how the asserted license was determined if it does not match the detected license.
		+
		+	5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance
		+
		+	5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:"
		+
		+	5.3c.5 RDF: TBD
		+
		+	5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with </text>.
		+
		+	5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The asserted license was taken from the package level that the file was included in. </text>
		+
		+	[[Category:Legal\|Minutes]]
		+	[[Category:Minutes]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 7 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<p> </p><p><strong>Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes - 20110114</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>SPDX Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes – 14-January-2011</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>Attendees:</strong></p><p>Esteban Rockett (Motorola) Kate Stewart (Canonical)</p><p>Kim Weins (OpenLogic)</p><p>Peter Williams (OpenLogic)</p><p>Scott Peterson (HP)</p><p>Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)</p><p>Tom Incorvia (Microfocus)</p><p>Michael Herzog (NexB)</p><p>Phil Odence (BlackDuck)</p><p> </p><p><strong>Minutes:</strong></p><p> </p><p>- This meeting was a continuation of "Item E" from the regular Legal Workstream Meeting of 12-Jan-2011.</p><p>- Subject to refining terminology (where attendees will email terminology/minor revisions or do so on Bugzilla), attendees agreed to the following:</p><p> </p><p>*</p><p>(minor edits consistent with meeting done below by Rockett)</p><p> </p><p>Proposal:  section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec will</p><p>become 3 fields:</p><p> </p><p>5.3a Asserted/Concluded License</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license</p><p>governing the file if it can be determined.  If no license</p><p>information can be determined, the license is denoted as</p><p>"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard short</p><p>form names.   See Appendix I for standardized license short</p><p>forms.  If a Asserted/Concluded License is not one of the</p><p>standardized license short forms, this field must contain a</p><p>reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX</p><p>file in section 4.  If more than one license is asserted/concluded in</p><p>the file, then each should be listed.  If any of the</p><p>asserted/concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,</p><p>then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"</p><p>license.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform</p><p>method to refer to the license that is determined to</p><p>represent the file with specificity to eliminate any license</p><p>confusion.  For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a</p><p>different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.5 RDF: TBD  (include Disjunctive form here)</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in</p><p>Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.7 Example:</p><p>LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>5.3b Detected License(s)</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license recited </p><p>in the file, if any.  It will be explicit</p><p>from the file header or other information found in the</p><p>file's source code.    If no license information is found</p><p>it should be denoted as "NotSpecified".  If no license</p><p>information can be determined, the license is denoted as</p><p>"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard short</p><p>form names.   See Appendix I for standardized license short</p><p>forms.  If a Detected License is not one of the</p><p>standardized license short forms, this field must contain a</p><p>reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX</p><p>file in section 4.  If more than one license is detected in</p><p>the file, then each should be listed.  If any of the</p><p>detected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,</p><p>then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"</p><p>license.</p><p> </p><p>5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform</p><p>method to refer to each license with specificity to</p><p>eliminate any license confusion.  For example, the 3 clause</p><p>BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4</p><p>clause BSD.</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one or many.</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if</p><p>multiple many should be specified )</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in</p><p>Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.7 Example:</p><p>LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0</p><p>LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>5.3c License Comments</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description</p><p>of the analysis and any relevent background references that</p><p>went in to making the asserted license for a file, if the</p><p>asserted/concluded license does not match the detected license that</p><p>the person creating the SPDX file wants to share with the</p><p>reviewers.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide</p><p>technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical</p><p>explanation of how the asserted license was determined if it</p><p>does not match the detected license.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.5 RDF: TBD</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span</p><p>multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with</p><p></text>.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The</p><p>asserted license was taken from the package level that the</p><p>file was included in.  </text></p><p>*</p><p> </p>	+	<p> </p><p><strong>Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes - 20110114</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>SPDX Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes – 14-January-2011</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>Attendees:</strong></p><p>Esteban Rockett (Motorola)</p><p> Kate Stewart (Canonical)</p><p>Kim Weins (OpenLogic)</p><p>Peter Williams (OpenLogic)</p><p>Scott Peterson (HP)</p><p>Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)</p><p>Tom Incorvia (Microfocus)</p><p>Michael Herzog (NexB)</p><p>Phil Odence (BlackDuck)</p><p> </p><p><strong>Minutes:</strong></p><p> </p><p>- This meeting was a continuation of "Item E" from the regular Legal Workstream Meeting of 12-Jan-2011.</p><p>- Subject to refining terminology (where attendees will email terminology/minor revisions or do so on Bugzilla), attendees agreed to the following:</p><p> </p><p>*</p><p>(minor edits consistent with meeting done below by Rockett)</p><p> </p><p>Proposal:  section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec will</p><p>become 3 fields:</p><p> </p><p>5.3a Asserted/Concluded License</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license</p><p>governing the file if it can be determined.  If no license</p><p>information can be determined, the license is denoted as</p><p>"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard short</p><p>form names.   See Appendix I for standardized license short</p><p>forms.  If a Asserted/Concluded License is not one of the</p><p>standardized license short forms, this field must contain a</p><p>reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX</p><p>file in section 4.  If more than one license is asserted/concluded in</p><p>the file, then each should be listed.  If any of the</p><p>asserted/concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,</p><p>then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"</p><p>license.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform</p><p>method to refer to the license that is determined to</p><p>represent the file with specificity to eliminate any license</p><p>confusion.  For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a</p><p>different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.5 RDF: TBD  (include Disjunctive form here)</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in</p><p>Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.7 Example:</p><p>LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>5.3b Detected License(s)</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license recited </p><p>in the file, if any.  It will be explicit</p><p>from the file header or other information found in the</p><p>file's source code.    If no license information is found</p><p>it should be denoted as "NotSpecified".  If no license</p><p>information can be determined, the license is denoted as</p><p>"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard short</p><p>form names.   See Appendix I for standardized license short</p><p>forms.  If a Detected License is not one of the</p><p>standardized license short forms, this field must contain a</p><p>reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX</p><p>file in section 4.  If more than one license is detected in</p><p>the file, then each should be listed.  If any of the</p><p>detected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,</p><p>then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"</p><p>license.</p><p> </p><p>5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform</p><p>method to refer to each license with specificity to</p><p>eliminate any license confusion.  For example, the 3 clause</p><p>BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4</p><p>clause BSD.</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one or many.</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if</p><p>multiple many should be specified )</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in</p><p>Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.7 Example:</p><p>LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0</p><p>LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>5.3c License Comments</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description</p><p>of the analysis and any relevent background references that</p><p>went in to making the asserted license for a file, if the</p><p>asserted/concluded license does not match the detected license that</p><p>the person creating the SPDX file wants to share with the</p><p>reviewers.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide</p><p>technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical</p><p>explanation of how the asserted license was determined if it</p><p>does not match the detected license.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.5 RDF: TBD</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span</p><p>multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with</p><p></text>.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The</p><p>asserted license was taken from the package level that the</p><p>file was included in.  </text></p><p>*</p><p> </p>

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 20 January 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<p><p><strong>Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes - 20110114</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>SPDX Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes – 14-January-2011</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>Attendees:</strong></p><p>Esteban Rockett (Motorola) Kate Stewart (Canonical)</p><p>Kim Weins (OpenLogic)</p><p>Peter Williams (OpenLogic)</p><p>Scott Peterson (HP)</p><p>Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)</p><p>Tom Incorvia (Microfocus)</p><p>Michael Herzog (NexB)</p><p>~~ ~~</p><p> </p><p><strong>Minutes:</strong></p><p> </p><p>- This meeting was a continuation of "Item E" from the regular Legal Workstream Meeting of 12-Jan-2011.</p><p>- Subject to refining terminology (where attendees will email terminology/minor revisions or do so on Bugzilla), attendees agreed to the following:</p><p> </p><p>*</p><p>(minor edits consistent with meeting done below by Rockett)</p><p> </p><p>Proposal:  section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec will</p><p>become 3 fields:</p><p> </p><p>5.3a Asserted/Concluded License</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license</p><p>governing the file if it can be determined.  If no license</p><p>information can be determined, the license is denoted as</p><p>"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard short</p><p>form names.   See Appendix I for standardized license short</p><p>forms.  If a Asserted/Concluded License is not one of the</p><p>standardized license short forms, this field must contain a</p><p>reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX</p><p>file in section 4.  If more than one license is asserted/concluded in</p><p>the file, then each should be listed.  If any of the</p><p>asserted/concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,</p><p>then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"</p><p>license.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform</p><p>method to refer to the license that is determined to</p><p>represent the file with specificity to eliminate any license</p><p>confusion.  For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a</p><p>different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.5 RDF: TBD  (include Disjunctive form here)</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in</p><p>Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.7 Example:</p><p>LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>5.3b Detected License(s)</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license recited </p><p>in the file, if any.  It will be explicit</p><p>from the file header or other information found in the</p><p>file's source code.    If no license information is found</p><p>it should be denoted as "NotSpecified".  If no license</p><p>information can be determined, the license is denoted as</p><p>"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard short</p><p>form names.   See Appendix I for standardized license short</p><p>forms.  If a Detected License is not one of the</p><p>standardized license short forms, this field must contain a</p><p>reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX</p><p>file in section 4.  If more than one license is detected in</p><p>the file, then each should be listed.  If any of the</p><p>detected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,</p><p>then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"</p><p>license.</p><p> </p><p>5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform</p><p>method to refer to each license with specificity to</p><p>eliminate any license confusion.  For example, the 3 clause</p><p>BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4</p><p>clause BSD.</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one or many.</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if</p><p>multiple many should be specified )</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in</p><p>Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.7 Example:</p><p>LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0</p><p>LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>5.3c License Comments</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description</p><p>of the analysis and any relevent background references that</p><p>went in to making the asserted license for a file, if the</p><p>asserted/concluded license does not match the detected license that</p><p>the person creating the SPDX file wants to share with the</p><p>reviewers.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide</p><p>technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical</p><p>explanation of how the asserted license was determined if it</p><p>does not match the detected license.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.5 RDF: TBD</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span</p><p>multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with</p><p></text>.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The</p><p>asserted license was taken from the package level that the</p><p>file was included in.  </text></p><p>*</p></p>	+	<p> </p><p><strong>Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes - 20110114</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>SPDX Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes – 14-January-2011</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>Attendees:</strong></p><p>Esteban Rockett (Motorola) Kate Stewart (Canonical)</p><p>Kim Weins (OpenLogic)</p><p>Peter Williams (OpenLogic)</p><p>Scott Peterson (HP)</p><p>Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)</p><p>Tom Incorvia (Microfocus)</p><p>Michael Herzog (NexB)</p><p>Phil Odence (BlackDuck)</p><p> </p><p><strong>Minutes:</strong></p><p> </p><p>- This meeting was a continuation of "Item E" from the regular Legal Workstream Meeting of 12-Jan-2011.</p><p>- Subject to refining terminology (where attendees will email terminology/minor revisions or do so on Bugzilla), attendees agreed to the following:</p><p> </p><p>*</p><p>(minor edits consistent with meeting done below by Rockett)</p><p> </p><p>Proposal:  section 5.3 (License(s)) of the spec will</p><p>become 3 fields:</p><p> </p><p>5.3a Asserted/Concluded License</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.1 Purpose: This field contains the license</p><p>governing the file if it can be determined.  If no license</p><p>information can be determined, the license is denoted as</p><p>"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard short</p><p>form names.   See Appendix I for standardized license short</p><p>forms.  If a Asserted/Concluded License is not one of the</p><p>standardized license short forms, this field must contain a</p><p>reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX</p><p>file in section 4.  If more than one license is asserted/concluded in</p><p>the file, then each should be listed.  If any of the</p><p>asserted/concluded licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,</p><p>then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"</p><p>license.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform</p><p>method to refer to the license that is determined to</p><p>represent the file with specificity to eliminate any license</p><p>confusion.  For example, the 3 clause BSD would have a</p><p>different license identifier then the 4 clause BSD.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one.</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseAsserted:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.5 RDF: TBD  (include Disjunctive form here)</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in</p><p>Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N</p><p> </p><p>5.3a.7 Example:</p><p>LicenseAsserted: GPL-2.0</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>5.3b Detected License(s)</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license recited </p><p>in the file, if any.  It will be explicit</p><p>from the file header or other information found in the</p><p>file's source code.    If no license information is found</p><p>it should be denoted as "NotSpecified".  If no license</p><p>information can be determined, the license is denoted as</p><p>"Unknown".   The licenses should use the standard short</p><p>form names.   See Appendix I for standardized license short</p><p>forms.  If a Detected License is not one of the</p><p>standardized license short forms, this field must contain a</p><p>reference to the full licenses text included in this SPDX</p><p>file in section 4.  If more than one license is detected in</p><p>the file, then each should be listed.  If any of the</p><p>detected licenses offer the recipient a choice of licenses,</p><p>then each of the choices will be declared as a "disjunctive"</p><p>license.</p><p> </p><p>5.ba.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to have a uniform</p><p>method to refer to each license with specificity to</p><p>eliminate any license confusion.  For example, the 3 clause</p><p>BSD would have a different license identifier then the 4</p><p>clause BSD.</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one or many.</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseDetected:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if</p><p>multiple many should be specified )</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in</p><p>Appendix I> \| "FullLicense"-N</p><p> </p><p>5.3b.7 Example:</p><p>LicenseDetected: GPL-2.0</p><p>LicenseDetected: FullLicense-2</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>5.3c License Comments</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description</p><p>of the analysis and any relevent background references that</p><p>went in to making the asserted license for a file, if the</p><p>asserted/concluded license does not match the detected license that</p><p>the person creating the SPDX file wants to share with the</p><p>reviewers.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide</p><p>technical readers/reviewers with a detailed technical</p><p>explanation of how the asserted license was determined if it</p><p>does not match the detected license.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:"</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.5 RDF: TBD</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span</p><p>multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with</p><p></text>.</p><p> </p><p>5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The</p><p>asserted license was taken from the package level that the</p><p>file was included in.  </text></p><p>*</p><p> </p>

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:31, 16 December 2011
(No difference)