Legal Team/Minutes/2015-09-17 - Revision history

Jlovejoy at 18:58, 17 October 2015

2015-10-17T18:58:33Z

Mgisi at 05:54, 16 October 2015

2015-10-16T05:54:03Z

Jlovejoy at 18:34, 15 October 2015

2015-10-15T18:34:18Z

Jlovejoy: /* Agenda */

2015-10-15T18:32:01Z

‎Agenda

Jlovejoy at 18:25, 15 October 2015

2015-10-15T18:25:12Z

Jlovejoy at 18:39, 17 September 2015

2015-09-17T18:39:11Z

Jlovejoy at 18:27, 17 September 2015

2015-09-17T18:27:30Z

Jlovejoy: Created page with "== Attendees == * Kate Stewart * Sam Ellis * Mary Hardy * Dennis Clark * Mark Gisi * Jilayne Lovejoy == Agenda == 1) Announcements/updates: a) formatting issue with standa..."

2015-09-17T18:25:20Z

Created page with "== Attendees == * Kate Stewart * Sam Ellis * Mary Hardy * Dennis Clark * Mark Gisi * Jilayne Lovejoy == Agenda == 1) Announcements/updates: a) formatting issue with standa..."

New page

== Attendees ==
* Kate Stewart
* Sam Ellis
* Mary Hardy
* Dennis Clark
* Mark Gisi
* Jilayne Lovejoy

== Agenda ==

1) Announcements/updates:
a) formatting issue with standard headers on HTML pages for license list has now been fixed (thanks, Gary!)
b) LinuxCon Europe is in a few weeks: talks related to SPDX by Jilayne http://sched.co/3xVB and Phil Odence and Dave Marr - http://sched.co/4GGz
Also, there will be a Supply Chain Mini-Summit on the Thursday, see more info here: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-europe/extend-the-experience/supply-chain-summit
Supply Chain Mini-Summit - anyone going? Jilayne, Kate
- participating via phone or conference might be hard, but Kate will look into getting a phone in the room. considering it is challenging to follow along remotely. Otherwise, we’ll take notes.
c) Working on proposal for pull request process for license list templates (and possibly other aspects of changes to license list) - will submit a full proposal to legal team when something more concrete is ready (see http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-08-06 for initial discussion/reference)

2) SPDX License List v2.2 is scheduled to be released at the end of this month!
a) got some answers back from Fedora on licenses on their list we wanted to add, but couldn’t find text for, etc. Can we add:

i) Interbase Public License / Interbase - http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html - link broken, can’t find license. Does Fedora have it archived somewhere? Is this still used / do we need to add to SPDX-LL?
ANSWER: Here is an archived copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060319014854/http://info.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html
Firebird is still under this license, still used in Fedora.
DECISION: to add. no markup needed.

ii) Sendmail License / Sendmail / http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE - link from Fedora site does not go to license. We intend to add, but wanted to confirm that we have the correct license that you meant due to broken link - can you confirm that this the correct license here:
http://www.sendmail.com/pdfs/open_source/sendmail_license.pdf
ANSWER: That is the correct sendmail license. We have updated our link.
DECISION: to add. no markup needed.

iii) Crystal Stacker License / Crystal Stacker - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CrystalStacker - license on
Fedora site does not match license in download. (full explanation was in previous email thread) - please review and see if you agree with the
recommendation at the end of the email.
ANSWER: Updated the Crystal Stacker entry in the Fedora license list to add the missing disclaimer text. License now matches license in download. I do not believe there is a different source license vs binary license here.
JL: further explanation re: previous email thread to be provided on call
DECISION: add it as Fedora has it.

b) To continue (pick back up) our momentum for adding license exceptions, please review the 5 license exceptions highlighted in light green here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 for potentially adding to v2.2
- ADD:
— DigiRule-FOSS-exception - ADD
— Fawkes exception - ADD
— Oracle - FOSS exception - there are two-ish. Sam has info that the one in row 1 is the short form of the long form in row 7 (from Sam’s email in July 2, 2015)
— Franz Lisp - don’t add, make note to people to review list and if they want to champion something that we didn’t add, then do so
— OpenVPN OpenSSL - ADD

c) Also, let’s discuss a couple items related to existing exceptions that we didn’t quite get to for v2.1:
i) WxWindows - the text in the exception we have versus what is on the OSI site is not the same!! The only differences are: we have "3.1" instead of "3.0" in the first clause; and "your" instead of "the user's" in the second clause. See http://opensource.org/licenses/WXwindows and http://spdx.org/licenses/WxWindows-exception-3.1.html - what we have is consistent with what is here: https://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/
· should we accommodate this difference somehow? If so, due to this already being on the license list, this seems like it should be a priority to resolve for v2.1 release
DECISION: leave as we have it, since it’s current with the Wx website. let OSI know there is discrepancy and see what they have to say

ii) Classpath-exception-2.0 - why do we have 2.0 and the note saying it’s typically used with GPL-2.0? the Fedora example has it being used with all GPL versions and there doesn’t seem to have other versions. worth removing the “2.0” in the short identifier?
DECISION: remove note about “typically used with GPLv2”, leave short identifier as is

3) License matching templates/markup:
We have a task to add markup to some of the standard headers and have also had input to add/edit markup on existing licenses. As a result of the latter, it has been raised that perhaps the markup could be improved. Before adding more markup (to standard headers, license text or both), it seemed prudent to start a discussion as to whether the existing markup is effective. Please ponder the following questions:
a) have you used the existing markup for matching purposes?
i) if no, why not?
ii) if yes, has it been helpful/effective? Could it be improved, and if so, how? (this will likely involve putting forward a proposal for review)

This is a discussion that will not be completed on Thursday’s call and should extend to other groups. As such, I have copied the Tech team here. We will also raise this discussion at the Supply Chain Mini-Summit in Dublin, Thursday afternoon, Oct 8

Please also add thoughts (preferably in a new section or with your initials if added to others) here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing
- people who commented via email

Jilayne needs to use headphones on calls (otherwise there is an annoying echo)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Attendees ==
-* Jilayne
+* Kate Stewart
-* Kris
+* Sam Ellis
-* Dennis
+* Mary Hardy
-* Phil
+* Dennis Clark
-* Alan
+* Mark Gisi
-* Gary
+* Jilayne Lovejoy
-* Brad
-* Kate
-* Mark
 == Agenda ==
-'''2) Improving templates / markup for licenses ''' see: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing
+'''2) SPDX License List v2.2 is scheduled to be released at the end of this month! '''
-* we can always add more markup, but want to first consider if we improve the markup - function and/or form
+* a) Additions to license list. We got some answers back from Fedora on licenses on their list we wanted to add, but couldn’t find text for, etc. Original question/issue and response listed here, with decision from today's call:
-* lots of discussion on technical aspects of this
+** Interbase Public License / Interbase - http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html - link broken, can’t find license. Does Fedora have it archived somewhere? Is this still used / do we need to add to SPDX-LL? FEDORA: Here is an archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20060319014854/http://info.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html Firebird is still under this license, still used in Fedora.
-* high-level questions are:
+*** DECISION: to add. no markup needed.
-** what is use case of goal of markup? original goals, use-cases: comparing two licenses to determine if it is a match & comparing any text to entire list to see if there is a match to any license. We prioritized the former, thinking there was already tools for the latter. matching guidelines purpose, as stated, does not really specify which use case it is aimed at (but could be interpreted as either or both)
+** Sendmail License / Sendmail /  http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE - link from Fedora site does not go to license. We intend to add, but wanted to confirm that we have the correct license that you meant due to broken link - can you confirm that this the correct license here: http://www.sendmail.com/pdfs/open_source/sendmail_license.pdf FEDORA: That is the correct sendmail license. We have updated our link.
-** should we extend markup to cover more of the latter goal?
+*** DECISION: to add. no markup needed.
-** if so, what format should this take?
+** Crystal Stacker License / Crystal Stacker -  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CrystalStacker - license on Fedora site does not match license in download. (full explanation was in previous email thread) - please review and see if you agree with the recommendation at the end of the email here http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/779/match=crystal FEDORA: Updated the Crystal Stacker entry in the Fedora license list to add the missing disclaimer text. License now matches license in download. I do not believe there is a different source license vs binary license here.
-*** can use or not use regular expressions or XML.  if we switch to XML format, changes work flow of maintaining license list
+*** DECISION: add it as Fedora has it.
-** if we make this change, will it get uptake?
-* markup on licenses or markup in meantime (e.g., standard headers)?  probably okay to do so, as can simply convert
+* b) To continue (pick back up) our momentum for adding license exceptions, please review the 5 license exceptions highlighted in light green here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 for potentially adding to v2.2 (see spreadsheet for full info, summary here:)
-Agreed on following process for proposal and discussion:
+** DigiRule-FOSS-exception - ADD
-# Kris to do proposal and example (on wiki)
+** Fawkes exception - ADD
-# have discussion on next legal call on Oct 29 - invite tech team, make sure FOSSology folks, Sam Ellis can join also
+** Oracle FOSS exception - there are two-ish.  Sam has info that the one in row 1 is the short form of the long form in row 7 (from Sam’s email in July 2, 2015). need to review further, on hold
-# then go from there, but as to overall timing - would be good to line up for v2.1 aiming to have that ready for Collab Summit (end of March). Note: Kate is working on getting a room for SPDX working group for a full day at Collab Summit, so put it on your calendars!! http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/collaboration-summit
+** Franz Lisp - don’t add, old and no one has seen it in the wild

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 '''2) Improving templates / markup for licenses ''' see: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing
-* we can always add more markup, but want to first consider if we should change the format of the markup
+* we can always add more markup, but want to first consider if we improve the markup - function and/or form
-* Kris recommended moving what is currently used (kind of custom for SPDX) to XML b/c of availability of tools to parse it
+* lots of discussion on technical aspects of this
-* what is use case of goal of markup?
+* high-level questions are:
-** original goals, use-cases: comparing two licenses to determine if it is a match & comparing any text to entire list to see if there is a match to any license. We prioritized the former, thinking there was already tools for the latter.
+** what is use case of goal of markup? original goals, use-cases: comparing two licenses to determine if it is a match & comparing any text to entire list to see if there is a match to any license. We prioritized the former, thinking there was already tools for the latter. matching guidelines purpose, as stated, does not really specify which use case it is aimed at (but could be interpreted as either or both)
-** concerns about performance issues with latter
+** should we extend markup to cover more of the latter goal?
-** matching guidelines purpose, as stated, does not really specify which use case it is aimed at (but could be interpreted as either or both)
+** if so, what format should this take?
-** if extend markup - could we create a set of regular expressions to apply to licenses and make sure they perform reasonably well
+*** can use or not use regular expressions or XML.  if we switch to XML format, changes work flow of maintaining license list
-** would need to revise current markup to properly anchor regular expression so it performs well. now useless due to being unconstrained
+** if we make this change, will it get uptake?
-** can use or not use regular expressions or XML (could replace current markup with XML without impacting anything)
-** some guidelines may not lend themselves to database, but need programming logic??
-* high-level: what is goal of matching and guidelines? do we want to expand the goal? if so, what form or format should
-** ex. if we switch to XML format, changes work flow of maintaining license list
 ** if we make this change, will it get uptake
-** Kris to do proposal and example (on wiki)
-** have discussion on next legal call on Oct 29 (make sure FOSSology folks, Sam Ellis can join)
 * markup on licenses or markup in meantime (e.g., standard headers)?  probably okay to do so, as can simply convert
-* would be good to line up for v2.1 aiming to have that ready for Collab Summit
+Agreed on following process for proposal and discussion:

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Attendees ==
-* Kate Stewart
+* Jilayne
-* Sam Ellis
+* Kris
-* Mary Hardy
+* Dennis
-* Dennis Clark
+* Phil
-* Mark Gisi
+* Alan
-* Jilayne Lovejoy
+* Gary
 == Agenda ==
-'''2) SPDX License List v2.2 is scheduled to be released at the end of this month! '''
+'''2) Improving templates / markup for licenses ''' see: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing
-* a) Additions to license list. We got some answers back from Fedora on licenses on their list we wanted to add, but couldn’t find text for, etc. Original question/issue and response listed here, with decision from today's call:
+* we can always add more markup, but want to first consider if we should change the format of the markup
-** Interbase Public License / Interbase - http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html - link broken, can’t find license. Does Fedora have it archived somewhere? Is this still used / do we need to add to SPDX-LL? FEDORA: Here is an archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20060319014854/http://info.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html Firebird is still under this license, still used in Fedora.
+* Kris recommended moving what is currently used (kind of custom for SPDX) to XML b/c of availability of tools to parse it
-*** DECISION: to add. no markup needed.
+* what is use case of goal of markup?
-** Sendmail License / Sendmail /  http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE - link from Fedora site does not go to license. We intend to add, but wanted to confirm that we have the correct license that you meant due to broken link - can you confirm that this the correct license here: http://www.sendmail.com/pdfs/open_source/sendmail_license.pdf FEDORA: That is the correct sendmail license. We have updated our link.
+** original goals, use-cases: comparing two licenses to determine if it is a match & comparing any text to entire list to see if there is a match to any license. We prioritized the former, thinking there was already tools for the latter.
-*** DECISION: to add. no markup needed.
+** concerns about performance issues with latter
-** Crystal Stacker License / Crystal Stacker -  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CrystalStacker - license on Fedora site does not match license in download. (full explanation was in previous email thread) - please review and see if you agree with the recommendation at the end of the email here http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/779/match=crystal FEDORA: Updated the Crystal Stacker entry in the Fedora license list to add the missing disclaimer text. License now matches license in download. I do not believe there is a different source license vs binary license here.
+** matching guidelines purpose, as stated, does not really specify which use case it is aimed at (but could be interpreted as either or both)
-*** DECISION: add it as Fedora has it.
+** if extend markup - could we create a set of regular expressions to apply to licenses and make sure they perform reasonably well
+** would need to revise current markup to properly anchor regular expression so it performs well. now useless due to being unconstrained
-* b) To continue (pick back up) our momentum for adding license exceptions, please review the 5 license exceptions highlighted in light green here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 for potentially adding to v2.2 (see spreadsheet for full info, summary here:)
+** can use or not use regular expressions or XML (could replace current markup with XML without impacting anything)
-** DigiRule-FOSS-exception - ADD
+** some guidelines may not lend themselves to database, but need programming logic??
-** Fawkes exception - ADD
+* high-level: what is goal of matching and guidelines? do we want to expand the goal? if so, what form or format should
-** Oracle FOSS exception - there are two-ish.  Sam has info that the one in row 1 is the short form of the long form in row 7 (from Sam’s email in July 2, 2015). need to review further, on hold
+** ex. if we switch to XML format, changes work flow of maintaining license list
-** Franz Lisp - don’t add, old and no one has seen it in the wild
+** if we make this change, will it get uptake
-** OpenVPN OpenSSL - ADD
+** Kris to do proposal and example (on wiki)
-** Also discussed whether all exceptions on this list should be added.  Many of these were from research done to collect various exceptions and not necessarily requested by anyone.  As such, we have tried to add the most common ones, but people should review list and if they want to champion something that we didn’t add, then please do so.
+** have discussion on next legal call on Oct 29 (make sure FOSSology folks, Sam Ellis can join)
+* markup on licenses or markup in meantime (e.g., standard headers)?  probably okay to do so, as can simply convert
-* c) Also, let’s discuss a couple items related to existing exceptions that we didn’t quite get to for v2.1:
+* would be good to line up for v2.1 aiming to have that ready for Collab Summit
-** WxWindows - the text in the exception we have versus what is on the OSI site is not the same!! The only differences are: we have "3.1" instead of "3.0" in the first clause; and "your" instead of "the user's" in the second clause. See http://opensource.org/licenses/WXwindows and http://spdx.org/licenses/WxWindows-exception-3.1.html - what we have is consistent with what is here: https://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ - should we accommodate this difference somehow?
-*** DECISION: leave as we have it, since it’s current with the Wx website. let OSI know there is discrepancy and see what they have to say
-** Classpath-exception-2.0 - why do we have 2.0 and the note saying it’s typically used with GPL-2.0? the Fedora example has it being used with all GPL versions and there doesn’t seem to have other versions. worth removing the “2.0” in the short identifier?
-*** DECISION: remove note about “typically used with GPLv2”, leave short identifier as is
-−
-'''3) License matching templates/markup: ''' We have a task to add markup to some of the standard headers and have also had input to add/edit markup on existing licenses.  As a result of the latter, it has been raised that perhaps the markup could be improved. Before adding more markup (to standard headers, license text or both), it seemed prudent to start a discussion as to whether the existing markup is effective.  Please ponder the following questions:
-* a) have you used the existing markup for matching purposes? if no, why not? if yes, has it been helpful/effective?  Could it be improved, and if so, how? (this will likely involve putting forward a proposal for review)
-* there were already various emails with feedback to this end, but we did not have time to discuss further on this call.  We will pick this up on the next call and will also raise this discussion at the Supply Chain Mini-Summit in Dublin, Thursday afternoon, Oct 8
-** Please also add thoughts (preferably in a new section or with your initials if added to others) here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing
-−
-'''other notes:'''
-* Jilayne needs to use headphones on calls (otherwise there is an annoying echo for everyone else)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 '''1) Announcements/updates:'''
-	a) formatting issue with standard headers on HTML pages for license list has now been fixed (thanks, Gary!)
+* a) formatting issue with standard headers on HTML pages for license list has now been fixed (thanks, Gary!)
-	b) LinuxCon Europe is in a few weeks: talks related to SPDX by Jilayne http://sched.co/3xVB  and Phil Odence and Dave Marr - http://sched.co/4GGz
+* b) LinuxCon Europe is in a few weeks:
-Also, there will be a Supply Chain Mini-Summit on the Thursday, see more info here: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-europe/extend-the-experience/supply-chain-summit
+** talks related to SPDX by Jilayne http://sched.co/3xVB  and Phil Odence and Dave Marr - http://sched.co/4GGz
-Supply Chain Mini-Summit - anyone going? Jilayne, Kate
+** there will be a Supply Chain Mini-Summit on the Thursday, see more info here: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-europe/extend-the-experience/supply-chain-summit - anyone going? Jilayne, Kate
 - participating via phone or conference might be hard, but Kate will look into getting a phone in the room. considering it is challenging to follow along remotely.  Otherwise, we’ll take notes.
-	c) Working on proposal for pull request process for license list templates (and possibly other aspects of changes to license list) - will submit a full proposal to legal team when something more concrete is ready (see http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-08-06 for initial discussion/reference)
+* c) Working on proposal for pull request process for license list templates (and possibly other aspects of changes to license list) - will submit a full proposal to legal team when something more concrete is ready (see http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-08-06 for initial discussion/reference)
+'''2) SPDX License List v2.2 is scheduled to be released at the end of this month! '''
-) SPDX License List v2.2 is scheduled to be released at the end of this month!
+* a) Additions to license list. We got some answers back from Fedora on licenses on their list we wanted to add, but couldn’t find text for, etc. Original question/issue and response listed here, with decision from today's call:
-	a) got some answers back from Fedora on licenses on their list we wanted to add, but couldn’t find text for, etc. Can we add:
+** Interbase Public License / Interbase - http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html - link broken, can’t find license. Does Fedora have it archived somewhere? Is this still used / do we need to add to SPDX-LL? FEDORA: Here is an archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20060319014854/http://info.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html Firebird is still under this license, still used in Fedora.
+*** DECISION: to add. no markup needed.
-		i)  Interbase Public License / Interbase - http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html - link broken, can’t find license. Does Fedora have it archived somewhere? Is this still used / do we need to add to SPDX-LL?
+** Sendmail License / Sendmail /  http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE - link from Fedora site does not go to license. We intend to add, but wanted to confirm that we have the correct license that you meant due to broken link - can you confirm that this the correct license here: http://www.sendmail.com/pdfs/open_source/sendmail_license.pdf FEDORA: That is the correct sendmail license. We have updated our link.
-ANSWER: Here is an archived copy:
+*** DECISION: to add. no markup needed.
-https://web.archive.org/web/20060319014854/http://info.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html
+** Crystal Stacker License / Crystal Stacker -  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CrystalStacker - license on Fedora site does not match license in download. (full explanation was in previous email thread) - please review and see if you agree with the recommendation at the end of the email here http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/779/match=crystal FEDORA: Updated the Crystal Stacker entry in the Fedora license list to add the missing disclaimer text. License now matches license in download. I do not believe there is a different source license vs binary license here.
-Firebird is still under this license, still used in Fedora.
+*** DECISION: add it as Fedora has it.
 DECISION: to add. no markup needed.
-−
-		ii) Sendmail License / Sendmail /  http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE - link from Fedora site does not go to license. We intend to add, but wanted to confirm that we have the correct license that you meant due to broken link - can you confirm that this the correct license here:
-http://www.sendmail.com/pdfs/open_source/sendmail_license.pdf
-ANSWER: That is the correct sendmail license. We have updated our link.
 DECISION: to add. no markup needed.
-−
-		iii) Crystal Stacker License / Crystal Stacker -  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CrystalStacker - license on
 Fedora site does not match license in download. (full explanation was in previous email thread) - please review and see if you agree with the
 recommendation at the end of the email.
-ANSWER: Updated the Crystal Stacker entry in the Fedora license list to add the missing disclaimer text. License now matches license in download. I do not believe there is a different source license vs binary license here.
-JL: further explanation re: previous email thread to be provided on call
 DECISION: add it as Fedora has it.
-	b) To continue (pick back up) our momentum for adding license exceptions, please review the 5 license exceptions highlighted in light green here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 for potentially adding to v2.2
+* b) To continue (pick back up) our momentum for adding license exceptions, please review the 5 license exceptions highlighted in light green here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 for potentially adding to v2.2 (see spreadsheet for full info, summary here:)
-- ADD:
+** DigiRule-FOSS-exception - ADD
-— DigiRule-FOSS-exception - ADD
+** Fawkes exception - ADD
-— Fawkes exception - ADD
+** Oracle FOSS exception - there are two-ish.  Sam has info that the one in row 1 is the short form of the long form in row 7 (from Sam’s email in July 2, 2015). need to review further, on hold
-— Oracle - FOSS exception - there are two-ish.  Sam has info that the one in row 1 is the short form of the long form in row 7 (from Sam’s email in July 2, 2015)
+** Franz Lisp - don’t add, old and no one has seen it in the wild
-— Franz Lisp - don’t add, make note to people to review list and if they want to champion something that we didn’t add, then do so
+** OpenVPN OpenSSL - ADD
-— OpenVPN OpenSSL - ADD
+** Also discussed whether all exceptions on this list should be added.  Many of these were from research done to collect various exceptions and not necessarily requested by anyone.  As such, we have tried to add the most common ones, but people should review list and if they want to champion something that we didn’t add, then please do so.
-−
-	c) Also, let’s discuss a couple items related to existing exceptions that we didn’t quite get to for v2.1:
+* c) Also, let’s discuss a couple items related to existing exceptions that we didn’t quite get to for v2.1:
-		i) WxWindows - the text in the exception we have versus what is on the OSI site is not the same!! The only differences are: we have "3.1" instead of "3.0" in the first clause; and "your" instead of "the user's" in the second clause. See http://opensource.org/licenses/WXwindows and http://spdx.org/licenses/WxWindows-exception-3.1.html - what we have is consistent with what is here: https://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/
+** WxWindows - the text in the exception we have versus what is on the OSI site is not the same!! The only differences are: we have "3.1" instead of "3.0" in the first clause; and "your" instead of "the user's" in the second clause. See http://opensource.org/licenses/WXwindows and http://spdx.org/licenses/WxWindows-exception-3.1.html - what we have is consistent with what is here: https://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ - should we accommodate this difference somehow?
-·         should we accommodate this difference somehow? If so, due to this already being on the license list, this seems like it should be a priority to resolve for v2.1 release
+*** DECISION: leave as we have it, since it’s current with the Wx website. let OSI know there is discrepancy and see what they have to say
-DECISION: leave as we have it, since it’s current with the Wx website. let OSI know there is discrepancy and see what they have to say
+** Classpath-exception-2.0 - why do we have 2.0 and the note saying it’s typically used with GPL-2.0? the Fedora example has it being used with all GPL versions and there doesn’t seem to have other versions. worth removing the “2.0” in the short identifier?
+*** DECISION: remove note about “typically used with GPLv2”, leave short identifier as is
-		ii) Classpath-exception-2.0 - why do we have 2.0 and the note saying it’s typically used with GPL-2.0? the Fedora example has it being used with all GPL versions and there doesn’t seem to have other versions. worth removing the “2.0” in the short identifier?
 DECISION: remove note about “typically used with GPLv2”, leave short identifier as is
-−
-) License matching templates/markup:
-We have a task to add markup to some of the standard headers and have also had input to add/edit markup on existing licenses.  As a result of the latter, it has been raised that perhaps the markup could be improved. Before adding more markup (to standard headers, license text or both), it seemed prudent to start a discussion as to whether the existing markup is effective.  Please ponder the following questions:
-	a) have you used the existing markup for matching purposes?
-		i) if no, why not?
-		ii) if yes, has it been helpful/effective?  Could it be improved, and if so, how? (this will likely involve putting forward a proposal for review)
-−
-This is a discussion that will not be completed on Thursday’s call and should extend to other groups. As such, I have copied the Tech team here. We will also raise this discussion at the Supply Chain Mini-Summit in Dublin, Thursday afternoon, Oct 8
-Please also add thoughts (preferably in a new section or with your initials if added to others) here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing
+'''3) License matching templates/markup: ''' We have a task to add markup to some of the standard headers and have also had input to add/edit markup on existing licenses.  As a result of the latter, it has been raised that perhaps the markup could be improved. Before adding more markup (to standard headers, license text or both), it seemed prudent to start a discussion as to whether the existing markup is effective.  Please ponder the following questions:
-- people who commented via email
+* a) have you used the existing markup for matching purposes? if no, why not? if yes, has it been helpful/effective?  Could it be improved, and if so, how? (this will likely involve putting forward a proposal for review)
-Jilayne needs to use headphones on calls (otherwise there is an annoying echo)
+'''other notes:'''