https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Legal_Team%2FMinutes%2F2013-08-29 2026-05-07T12:56:36Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.23.13 https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-08-29&diff=2697&oldid=prev 2013-08-29T19:47:30Z

<p>Created page with &quot; == Attendees == * Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic * Jack Manbeck, TI * Zak White, Entente * Scott Lamons, HP * Michael Herzog, NexB * Daniel German, U. of Victoria * Tom Vidal, Ab...&quot;</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div><br /> == Attendees ==<br /> * Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic<br /> * Jack Manbeck, TI<br /> * Zak White, Entente<br /> * Scott Lamons, HP<br /> * Michael Herzog, NexB<br /> * Daniel German, U. of Victoria<br /> * Tom Vidal, Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson<br /> * Phil Odence, Black Duck<br /> <br /> == Agenda ==<br /> <br /> '''License Matching Guidelines - templates'''<br /> - discussed various issues that have come up with templates so far, to further refine process and guidelines, etc.<br /> * review/affirmation from last meeting's discussion: no mark-up for extraneous text that occurs after the end of license terms (e.g. appendix, exhibit, instructions re: how to apply license); will cover this with a guideline. Jilayne did a first draft of such a guideline, which was sent to group via email. Reproduced below for reference<br /> <br /> GNU licenses, GPLv2 as example:<br /> * Preamble - is this part of the license? that is, if someone removed the preamble, would it still be okay to call it a positive match to the license (GPL or LGPL, various versions)?<br /> * sentence at start of licensing stating: have seen cases where this sentence was omitted, would that still be a match?<br /> ** in both the above cases, inclination was to not make a guideline or markup stating this is omit-able, even though in practice, if one found the GPLv2 with the preamble missing, which resulted in a mis-match for the LicenseInFile field of the spec, one would probably conclude the license to be GPLv2 in the ConcludedLicense field in the spec.<br /> ** some worry that to make an affirmative statement it can be omitted might cause concern in the community or implicate a &quot;judgment&quot; where one is not meant to be made<br /> * FSF address under copyright notice - FSF has moved, shouldn't matter which address for license matching purposes; is this part of the copyright notice (and therefore, already covered under Guideline # ) or should this be marked as &quot;replaceable&quot; text?<br /> <br /> <br /> FYI:<br /> * License List v1.19 to be released on Friday , Sept 6<br /> <br /> <br /> == Action Items ==<br /> # Jilayne/Phil to reach to Eben to enquire about Preamble and first sentence in regards to license matching<br /> # Jilayne to send a description for LinuxCon discussion to Jack to post on schedule; sent email to Legal team<br /> # other team leaders: also spread the word re: LinuxCon discussion<br /> # ALL: review other comments and questions in Google doc templates and comment there, so we can resolve various issues by next week (9/5)<br /> # ALL: review draft guideline and submit comments via email list - to finalize at next meeting on 9/12<br /> # ALL: see email re: Ruby license and comment via email list<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Legal|Minutes]]<br /> [[Category:Minutes]]</div>

Jlovejoy