Legal Team/Minutes/2014-11-24 - Revision history

Jlovejoy at 19:09, 24 November 2014

2014-11-24T19:09:24Z

Jlovejoy at 19:06, 24 November 2014

2014-11-24T19:06:20Z

Jlovejoy at 16:56, 24 November 2014

2014-11-24T16:56:13Z

Jlovejoy at 16:55, 24 November 2014

2014-11-24T16:55:45Z

Jlovejoy at 16:55, 24 November 2014

2014-11-24T16:55:27Z

Jlovejoy: Created page with "== Attendees == * * == AGENDA == '''1) New license requests:''' a) FTLK - FTLK (LGPL-2.0 with FTLTK exception), requested by Sam Ellis. As noted on the last call (and ba..."

2014-11-24T16:55:06Z

Created page with "== Attendees == * * == AGENDA == '''1) New license requests:''' a) FTLK - FTLK (LGPL-2.0 with FTLTK exception), requested by Sam Ellis. As noted on the last call (and ba..."

New page

== Attendees ==
*
*

== AGENDA ==

'''1) New license requests:'''

a) FTLK - FTLK (LGPL-2.0 with FTLTK exception), requested by Sam Ellis. As noted on the last call (and barring any objections from the Tech Team), we decided to go with all the exceptions marked as “2.0” on the exception list for the pre-release in December (which represents the exceptions currently on the License List) and then add the ones marked as “2.1” for the official release in February. FTLK is on the exception list, but noted for a later release. Move up for this release??

b) Intel Microcode, requested by Simon Glass. See original email for more info: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/983/match=intel

c) SIG GLX Public License, requested by Sam Ellis. This license is on the Fedora “bad” list. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/GLX_Public_License This license is referenced in recent releases of Oracle’s Java 8 software, for example, see Oracle’s third-party IP disclosure, see: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/thirdpartylicensereadme-java8-2168078.txt and search for the term ‘GLX’.

'''2) finish matching guidelines template work'''

a) NASA Open Source Agreement, 1.3 -http://spdx.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 has anyone seen this license filled in? Not sure how to do mark-up for this one.

'''3) Other license issues:'''

a) Mozilla Public License v2 (MPL-2.0 & MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception) http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0 & http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception - how to deal with for 2.0?

b) BSD with attribution (BSD-3-Clause-Attribution) http://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-Attribution - change full name to: BSD Acknowledgement and short identifier: BSD-Acknowledgement ? (also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/zlib-acknowledgement) - Is is confusing to have the word “with” in the full name? Should the “BSD with attribution” license short identifier really have “BSD-3-Clause …” as part of short identifier, when it’s really 4 clauses (same 3 clauses, plus an additional acknowledgment clause (or more like Apache 1.1 with one clause removed)?

c) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master Which has “...FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED.” in the disclaimer, where the usual language omits “AND NON-INFRINGEMENT” - Discussed previously and thought it better to not add and let it be a license ref, but wanted to get feedback from LF on how much it’s used.

'''4) remove deprecated licenses from list''' (Jilayne) - decided to move to a separate sheet. have begun work. need to draft some explanation text for website. Do we want these listed on website as list under main table on same page, or separate page??

'''5) license expression syntax FAQs''' (Mark) - please review: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/LicenseExpressionFAQ

'''6) examples for license expression syntax''' on wiki page: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples

'''7) add exceptions list to license list''' (Jilayne) - have added them, separate sheet in spreadsheet. will display as separate page on website with link from main licenses page and explanatory text at top, etc.

'''8) update website as per changes to license list''', etc. - Paul has made first pass on what might need to be changed - TBD for Dec 18th time frame

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 == AGENDA ==
 NOTE: there seems to be some confusion regarding the proper dial-in number for the calls. Please be sure to use the one posted on the wiki, here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team
 NOTE2: the next call is Dec 11th, at the usual time and day.  We will decide then if we need another call before the end of the year to replace the one that would otherwise fall on Christmas day.
@@ Line 20: / Line 21: @@
 '''2) finish matching guidelines template work'''
-:a) NASA Open  Source Agreement, 1.3 -http://spdx.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 has anyone seen this license filled in?  Not sure how to do mark-up for this one. - ask Daniel if he can just markup blanks. Alan found an example, will send to Daniel.
+:a) NASA Open  Source Agreement, 1.3 -http://spdx.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 has anyone seen this license filled in?  Not sure how to do mark-up for this one. - ask Daniel if he can just markup blanks. Alan found an example, see: http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/worldwind-nosa-1.3.html
 '''3) Other license issues:'''
@@ Line 29: / Line 30: @@
 - is having "with" in a full name of a license confusing (in light of license expression operator, 'WITH') keeping in mind that full names are not used with operators, only short identifiers - it's fine, but could change "with" to "plus" in full name and that might be better for both the BSD and zlib variations, but leave short identifier because not worth changing
-:c) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master Which has “...FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED.” in the disclaimer, where the usual language omits “AND NON-INFRINGEMENT”  - Discussed previously and thought it better to not add and let it be a license ref, but wanted to get feedback from LF on how much it’s used.  - no one from LF on call, skipped
+:c) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master Which has “...FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED.” in the disclaimer, where the usual language omits “AND NON-INFRINGEMENT”  - Discussed previously and thought it better to not add and let it be a license ref, but wanted to get feedback from LF on how much it’s used.  - no one from LF on call, skipped item
 '''4) remove deprecated licenses from list''' (Jilayne) - decided to move to a separate sheet. have begun work. need to draft some explanation text for website. Do we want these listed on website as list under main table on same page, or separate page??
 - put on same page, they are/were licenses, and still legitimate to use; don't worry about people getting confused with it being a long page. need to check with Gary that this (if too technically difficult to do - check with Gary - then will go back to separate page idea)
-- Dennis drafted some text for defining "deprecation" to be included at the top of the list of deprecated licenses, please review here and email any feedback:
+- Dennis drafted some text for defining "deprecation" to be included at the top of the list of deprecated licenses, '''''please review here and email feedback''''':
 ''Release 2.0 of the SPDX Specification introduces license expression syntax that supports the ability to identify common variations on standard licenses without the need to define each potential variation as a distinct license on the SPDX License List. This new syntax supports the ability to use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate “or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+), and it also supports the ability to declare a standard license exception using the “WITH” operator (e.g. GPL-2.0+ WITH Autoconf-exception-2.0).  SPDX has defined a list of standard License Exceptions to use after the “WITH” operator. A number of the standard License Exceptions were formerly included in the standard SPDX License List, but they have been deprecated as licenses, and correct usage employs the new license expression syntax. Note that for compatibility, the URL to each deprecated license still exists, but links to those deprecated licenses have been removed from the standard License List in order to clarify the currently recommended syntax.''
-'''5) license expression syntax FAQs''' (Mark) - please review: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/LicenseExpressionFAQ - please review and email feedback
+'''5) license expression syntax FAQs''' (Mark) - please review: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/LicenseExpressionFAQ - '''''please review and email feedback'''''
-'''6) examples for license expression syntax''' on wiki page: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples - please review and email feedback
+'''6) examples for license expression syntax''' on wiki page: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples - '''''please review and email feedback'''''
 '''7) add exceptions list to license list''' (Jilayne) - have added them, separate sheet in spreadsheet.  will display as separate page on website with link from main licenses page and explanatory text at top, etc.
 '''8) update website as per changes to license list''', etc. - Paul has made first pass on what might need to be changed - TBD for Dec 18th time frame

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Attendees ==
+* Dennis Clark
+* Alan Tse
 == AGENDA ==
 '''1) New license requests:'''
-:a) FTLK - FTLK (LGPL-2.0 with FTLTK exception), requested by Sam Ellis.  As noted on the last call (and barring any objections from the Tech Team), we decided to go with all the exceptions marked as “2.0” on the exception list for the pre-release in December (which represents the exceptions currently on the License List) and then add the ones marked as “2.1” for the official release in February.  FTLK is on the exception list, but noted for a later release.  Move up for this release??
+:a) FTLK - FTLK (LGPL-2.0 with FTLK exception), requested by Sam Ellis.  As noted on the last call (and barring any objections from the Tech Team), we decided to go with all the exceptions marked as “2.0” on the exception list for the pre-release in December (which represents the exceptions currently on the License List) and then add the ones marked as “2.1” for the official release in February.  FTLK is on the exception list, but noted for a later release.  Move up for this release?? - to be included with next release, not pre-release. discussed and decided to keep with idea of only including current exceptions for pre-release, with others to add once some testing has been done (This means FTLK and Libtool will not be on pre-release list)
-:b) Intel Microcode, requested by Simon Glass.  See original email for more info: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/983/match=intel
+:b) Intel Microcode, requested by Simon Glass.  See original email for more info: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/983/match=intel - this is not open source, it's a binary, freeware-type licenses. So will not add, but keep in licenses-in-considerations in case this delineation is relaxed in the future.
-:c) SIG GLX Public License, requested by Sam Ellis.  This license is on the Fedora “bad” list.  See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/GLX_Public_License This license is referenced in recent releases of Oracle’s Java 8 software, for example, see Oracle’s third-party IP disclosure, see: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/thirdpartylicensereadme-java8-2168078.txt  and search for the term ‘GLX’.
+:c) SGI GLX Public License, requested by Sam Ellis.  This license is on the Fedora “bad” list.  See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/GLX_Public_License This license is referenced in recent releases of Oracle’s Java 8 software, for example, see Oracle’s third-party IP disclosure, see: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/thirdpartylicensereadme-java8-2168078.txt  and search for the term ‘GLX’. - has some export clauses, which may be why Fedora considers non-free, but determined it is close enough, as other main terms are open source. name: GLX Public License v1.0, short identifier: GL-1.0 - no template needed
 '''2) finish matching guidelines template work'''
-:a) NASA Open  Source Agreement, 1.3 -http://spdx.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 has anyone seen this license filled in?  Not sure how to do mark-up for this one.
+:a) NASA Open  Source Agreement, 1.3 -http://spdx.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 has anyone seen this license filled in?  Not sure how to do mark-up for this one. - ask Daniel if he can just markup blanks. Alan found an example, will send to Daniel.
 '''3) Other license issues:'''
-:a) Mozilla Public License v2 (MPL-2.0 & MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception)  http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0 & http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception - how to deal with for 2.0?
+:a) Mozilla Public License v2 (MPL-2.0 & MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception)  http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0 & http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception - how to deal with for 2.0?  leave as is, as two line items on license list for now.  this text feeds into issue with headers and exception (but it's not really an exception).  too many moving parts changing right now.
 :b) BSD with attribution (BSD-3-Clause-Attribution)  http://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-Attribution  - change full name to: BSD Acknowledgement and short identifier: BSD-Acknowledgement ? (also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/zlib-acknowledgement) - Is is confusing to have the word “with” in the full name?  Should the “BSD with attribution” license short identifier really have “BSD-3-Clause …” as part of short identifier, when it’s really 4 clauses (same 3 clauses, plus an additional acknowledgment clause (or more like Apache 1.1 with one clause removed)?
-:c) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master Which has “...FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED.” in the disclaimer, where the usual language omits “AND NON-INFRINGEMENT”  - Discussed previously and thought it better to not add and let it be a license ref, but wanted to get feedback from LF on how much it’s used.
+:c) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master Which has “...FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED.” in the disclaimer, where the usual language omits “AND NON-INFRINGEMENT”  - Discussed previously and thought it better to not add and let it be a license ref, but wanted to get feedback from LF on how much it’s used.  - no one from LF on call, skipped
 '''4) remove deprecated licenses from list''' (Jilayne) - decided to move to a separate sheet. have begun work. need to draft some explanation text for website. Do we want these listed on website as list under main table on same page, or separate page??
-'''5) license expression syntax FAQs''' (Mark) - please review: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/LicenseExpressionFAQ
+''Release 2.0 of the SPDX Specification introduces license expression syntax that supports the ability to identify common variations on standard licenses without the need to define each potential variation as a distinct license on the SPDX License List. This new syntax supports the ability to use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate “or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+), and it also supports the ability to declare a standard license exception using the “WITH” operator (e.g. GPL-2.0+ WITH Autoconf-exception-2.0).  SPDX has defined a list of standard License Exceptions to use after the “WITH” operator. A number of the standard License Exceptions were formerly included in the standard SPDX License List, but they have been deprecated as licenses, and correct usage employs the new license expression syntax. Note that for compatibility, the URL to each deprecated license still exists, but links to those deprecated licenses have been removed from the standard License List in order to clarify the currently recommended syntax.''
-'''6) examples for license expression syntax''' on wiki page: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples
+'''5) license expression syntax FAQs''' (Mark) - please review: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/LicenseExpressionFAQ - please review and email feedback
 '''7) add exceptions list to license list''' (Jilayne) - have added them, separate sheet in spreadsheet.  will display as separate page on website with link from main licenses page and explanatory text at top, etc.
 '''8) update website as per changes to license list''', etc. - Paul has made first pass on what might need to be changed - TBD for Dec 18th time frame