Legal Team/Minutes/2013-05-09 - Revision history

Jlovejoy at 17:46, 9 May 2013

2013-05-09T17:46:33Z

Jlovejoy at 17:45, 9 May 2013

2013-05-09T17:45:38Z

Jlovejoy at 17:44, 9 May 2013

2013-05-09T17:44:45Z

Jlovejoy: Created page with "== Attendees == : * Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic * Jack Manbeck, TI * Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus * Zac White, Entente * Brian Ito, Morrison and Forrester * Phil Odence, Black Duc..."

2013-05-09T17:44:16Z

Created page with "== Attendees == : * Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic * Jack Manbeck, TI * Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus * Zac White, Entente * Brian Ito, Morrison and Forrester * Phil Odence, Black Duc..."

New page

== Attendees ==
:
* Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic
* Jack Manbeck, TI
* Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus
* Zac White, Entente
* Brian Ito, Morrison and Forrester
* Phil Odence, Black Duck
* Paul Madick, HP

== Agenda ==

1) new page for tracking licenses – Jack added a table format for ease of use: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Current_Issues_and_Licenses_Under_Consideration
Please take a look and we'll discuss the format and any changes, etc. so we can finalize and start using it!

* add name and contact info to list of items (and spreadsheet template), so then can lose that column in table
* add definitions for fields and status description at top of page
* link to email instead of needing separate ("worksheet") column and just putting that as first line in Notes? Jack to look into feasibility of this
* does stuff drop off list?
** leave it up, so people can see status during; can let person know to check here
** if something flat out rejected or accepted, drop off list? value of having rejected kept is so that doesn't get re-submitted - is this place for only things in process? and someplace else for rejected to go?
** for now, just keep everything on list for now? like a transaction log; good to have one source
** would people get confused if list has stuff that has licenses on it confuse people with license list; once on official list, then drop it off
* keep everything on for now and re-assess need for archive at later date (once it gets too long, for example)

2) SPDX survey - please keep circulating if you haven't already spdx.org/survey

3) license matching guidelines – need cross-team meeting with tech team; etc. - last call we discussed some the most recent proposal (from Daniel German), hoped to have some discussion via email, which didn't seem to happen. dedicate next legal call to this issue and have tech team join to decide upon implementation

4) request a new license page - see email with .pdf of revisions from Jason and Jilayne
* went over some of the questions and made revisions - Jilayne will capture revisions and send link/reminder to team once page has been updated on spdx.org

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 9 May 2013
Line 30:		Line 30:
	4) request a new license page - see email with .pdf of revisions from Jason and Jilayne		4) request a new license page - see email with .pdf of revisions from Jason and Jilayne
	* went over some of the questions and made revisions - Jilayne will capture revisions and send link/reminder to team once page has been updated on spdx.org		* went over some of the questions and made revisions - Jilayne will capture revisions and send link/reminder to team once page has been updated on spdx.org
		+
		+	[[Category:Legal\|Minutes]]
		+	[[Category:Minutes]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 * Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus
 * Zac White, Entente
-* Brian Ito, Morrison and Forrester
+* Brian Ito, Morrison and Forrester - NEW!
 * Phil Odence, Black Duck
 * Paul Madick, HP

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 * keep everything on for now and re-assess need for archive at later date (once it gets too long, for example)
-) SPDX survey - please keep circulating if you haven't already spdx.org/survey
+) SPDX survey - please keep circulating if you haven't already http://spdx.org/survey
 ) license matching guidelines – need cross-team meeting with tech team; etc. - last call we discussed some the most recent proposal (from Daniel German), hoped to have some discussion via email, which didn't seem to happen.  dedicate next legal call to this issue and have tech team join to decide upon implementation