Legal Team/Minutes/2012-11-13 - Revision history

MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

2013-03-05T17:50:01Z

Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Jlovejoy at 17:03, 14 November 2012

2012-11-14T17:03:46Z

Jlovejoy at 17:00, 14 November 2012

2012-11-14T17:00:15Z

New page

Attendees:<ul><li>Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic</li><li>Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus</li><li>Paul Madick, HP</li><li>Tom Vidal</li></ul>Agenda:1) couple quick updates:<ul><li>distributed draft of guildelines for types of licenses to be included (or not included on License List).  Tom Vidal drafted first round with Tom Incorvia and Jilayne reviewing.  </li><li>responded to Roger Meier re: Flora license request</li><li>have not responded to Roger's suggestion re: moving License List to Git (Jilayne to address this)</li></ul>2) Discussion re: draft license guidelines<ul><li>focusing on list of characteristics:  Vidal explained how he came up with factors - not a set of six, but more like a list of possibilities, how does a license rank on these factors (may not necessarily be mandatory)</li><ul><li>"provides access to source code" is probably right, but example, re: requiring distribution of source code is not always the case. maybe change language in lead-in to explain this, maybe even use IRS analogy</li><li>maybe change to description of broad grant of rights; source code accessible.  </li><li>discussion on how to capture "direct license" concept as factor</li><li>(see edits in document)</li><li>Tom V. to take edits and provide another revision for next call</li></ul></ul>3) we need more people attending these calls...

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 5 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~<p>~~Attendees~~:</p><ul><li>~~Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic~~</li><li>~~Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus~~</li><li>~~Paul Madick, HP~~</li><li>~~Tom Vidal~~</li></ul><p>Agenda:</p><p>1)~~ couple quick updates~~:</p><ul><li>~~distributed draft of guildelines for types of licenses to be included (or not included on License List). ~~ ~~Tom Vidal drafted first round with Tom Incorvia and Jilayne reviewing. ~~ </li><li>~~responded to Roger Meier re: Flora license request~~</li><li>~~have not responded to Roger's suggestion re: moving License List to Git (Jilayne to address this)~~</li></ul><p>2)~~ Discussion re: draft license guidelines~~</p><ul><li>~~focusing on list of characteristics: ~~ ~~Vidal explained how he came up with factors - not a set of six, but more like a list of possibilities, how does a license rank on these factors (may not necessarily be mandatory)~~</li><ul><li>~~"provides access to source code" is probably right, but example, re: requiring distribution of source code is not always the case. maybe change language in lead-in to explain this, maybe even use IRS analogy~~</li><li>~~maybe change to description of broad grant of rights; source code accessible. ~~ </li><li>~~discussion on how to capture "direct license" concept as factor~~</li><li>~~(see edits in document - included below with track changes from today's call.)~~</li><li>~~Tom V. to take edits and provide another revision for next call~~</li></ul></ul><p>3)~~ we need more people attending these calls...~~</p><p> </p><p> </p>~~	+	== Attendees ==
		+
		+	* Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic
		+	* Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus
		+	* Paul Madick, HP
		+	* Tom Vidal
		+
		+	== couple quick updates ==
		+
		+	* distributed draft of guildelines for types of licenses to be included (or not included on License List). Tom Vidal drafted first round with Tom Incorvia and Jilayne reviewing.
		+	* responded to Roger Meier re: Flora license request
		+	* have not responded to Roger's suggestion re: moving License List to Git (Jilayne to address this)
		+
		+	== Discussion re: draft license guidelines ==
		+
		+	* focusing on list of characteristics: Vidal explained how he came up with factors - not a set of six, but more like a list of possibilities, how does a license rank on these factors (may not necessarily be mandatory)
		+	** "provides access to source code" is probably right, but example, re: requiring distribution of source code is not always the case. maybe change language in lead-in to explain this, maybe even use IRS analogy
		+	** maybe change to description of broad grant of rights; source code accessible.
		+	** discussion on how to capture "direct license" concept as factor
		+	** (see edits in document - included below with track changes from today's call.)
		+	** Tom V. to take edits and provide another revision for next call
		+
		+	== Final remark ==
		+
		+	we need more people attending these calls...
		+
		+	[[Category:Legal\|Minutes]]
		+	[[Category:Minutes]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 14 November 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<p>Attendees:</p><ul><li>Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic</li><li>Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus</li><li>Paul Madick, HP</li><li>Tom Vidal</li></ul><p>Agenda:</p><p>1) couple quick updates:</p><ul><li>distributed draft of guildelines for types of licenses to be included (or not included on License List).  Tom Vidal drafted first round with Tom Incorvia and Jilayne reviewing.  </li><li>responded to Roger Meier re: Flora license request</li><li>have not responded to Roger's suggestion re: moving License List to Git (Jilayne to address this)</li></ul><p>2) Discussion re: draft license guidelines</p><ul><li>focusing on list of characteristics:  Vidal explained how he came up with factors - not a set of six, but more like a list of possibilities, how does a license rank on these factors (may not necessarily be mandatory)</li><ul><li>"provides access to source code" is probably right, but example, re: requiring distribution of source code is not always the case. maybe change language in lead-in to explain this, maybe even use IRS analogy</li><li>maybe change to description of broad grant of rights; source code accessible.  </li><li>discussion on how to capture "direct license" concept as factor</li><li>(see edits in document)</li><li>Tom V. to take edits and provide another revision for next call</li></ul></ul><p>3) we need more people attending these calls...</p><p> </p><p> </p>	+	<p>Attendees:</p><ul><li>Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic</li><li>Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus</li><li>Paul Madick, HP</li><li>Tom Vidal</li></ul><p>Agenda:</p><p>1) couple quick updates:</p><ul><li>distributed draft of guildelines for types of licenses to be included (or not included on License List).  Tom Vidal drafted first round with Tom Incorvia and Jilayne reviewing.  </li><li>responded to Roger Meier re: Flora license request</li><li>have not responded to Roger's suggestion re: moving License List to Git (Jilayne to address this)</li></ul><p>2) Discussion re: draft license guidelines</p><ul><li>focusing on list of characteristics:  Vidal explained how he came up with factors - not a set of six, but more like a list of possibilities, how does a license rank on these factors (may not necessarily be mandatory)</li><ul><li>"provides access to source code" is probably right, but example, re: requiring distribution of source code is not always the case. maybe change language in lead-in to explain this, maybe even use IRS analogy</li><li>maybe change to description of broad grant of rights; source code accessible.  </li><li>discussion on how to capture "direct license" concept as factor</li><li>(see edits in document - included below with track changes from today's call.)</li><li>Tom V. to take edits and provide another revision for next call</li></ul></ul><p>3) we need more people attending these calls...</p><p> </p><p> </p>