Legal Team/Minutes/2017-11-09 - Revision history

Wking: Link back to earlier Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation

2017-11-14T09:17:45Z

Link back to earlier Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation

Wking: Mention that the “license text but no grant” case will need an additional AMBIGUOUS or OR-MAYBE operator

2017-11-09T22:10:54Z

Mention that the “license text but no grant” case will need an additional AMBIGUOUS or OR-MAYBE operator

Wking: Add the “operator metadata proposal”, since I think it addresses the concerns which motivate (2) while still allowing for a future ‘PROXY {text}’ operator

2017-11-09T22:08:49Z

Add the “operator metadata proposal”, since I think it addresses the concerns which motivate (2) while still allowing for a future ‘PROXY {text}’ operator

Jlovejoy at 20:37, 9 November 2017

2017-11-09T20:37:53Z

Jlovejoy at 20:37, 9 November 2017

2017-11-09T20:37:01Z

Jlovejoy: Created page with "== Attendees == * Kate Stewart * Bradley Kuhn * Bradlee Edmondson * Alexios * John Sullivan * Dennis Clark * Paul Madick * Steve Winslow * Mike Dolan * Trevor King * Gary O’..."

2017-11-09T20:36:27Z

Created page with "== Attendees == * Kate Stewart * Bradley Kuhn * Bradlee Edmondson * Alexios * John Sullivan * Dennis Clark * Paul Madick * Steve Winslow * Mike Dolan * Trevor King * Gary O’..."

New page

== Attendees ==
* Kate Stewart
* Bradley Kuhn
* Bradlee Edmondson
* Alexios
* John Sullivan
* Dennis Clark
* Paul Madick
* Steve Winslow
* Mike Dolan
* Trevor King
* Gary O’Neall
* Alan Tse
* Jilayne

== Agenda ==
1) revisit the only/or later/? topic - see discussions from mailing list: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/thread.html
The notes below includes key points, but not all the discussion:
* John: issue with plain identifiers is if there is just a copy of license with no statement, then there’s statement in license itself that any version of GPL can be used; the copy of a version does not specify the version by itself. in response to Jilayne’s comparison to the license w/binary blob example (where the license would prevail with no other info needed in the “files”) - GPL is more specific, so not a comparison
* tension in how license list is used and different fields in spec - info in file v. conclusion; and outside an SPDX document - need to address both/all
* Trevor proposed enhancement to XML to flag error if use plain identifier (e.g., GPL0-2.0) which might only apply to conclusion fields
* could also add/make NOASSERTION as something that can be used as part of license list/expressions (not just within the spec/SPDX docs) - this would be helpful for more than this scenario.
* current proposal is easier for tooling and also leaves room for extensibility or other operators (discussion of how proxy clause would work, for example)

Net sum: two possible proposals, both of which accommodate 3 options:
* this version only
* this or any later version
* I found the license text (of a version) only and no other information

“Gary’s proposal” (same one as we’ve been talking about since beginning of this discussion):
* keep plain identifiers on license list (remove the word “only” in full name); add “only” operator; provide documentation that the plain identifier is meant to be used in the instance to show you found the text of that license

“Paul’s alternative proposal: provide 3 “hard-coded” options on the license list as follows:
* change current GPL-2.0 to GPL-2.0-only
* add GPL-2.0-or-later
* add GPL-2.0-text-alone (or something along those lines) to be used in the instance to show you found the text of that license)

Note: the use of people’s names is only to attribute who initiated the idea and aide in referring to the proposals :)

Note: next call falls on Thanksgiving, so we will use tech team’s call time on Tuesday, Nov to carry on discuss so too much time does not pass!

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 * current proposal is easier for tooling and also leaves room for extensibility or other operators (discussion of how proxy clause would work, for example)
-'''Net sum of call: two possible proposals, both of which accommodate 3 options: '''
+'''Net sum of call: possible proposals, all of which accommodate 3 options: '''
 * this version only
 * this or any later version
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 b) “operator metadata proposal”
-* Like “Gary's proposal”, but [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002126.html add] [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002308.html <code>compatibleWith…</code>] [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-October/002265.html metadata] so we can warn in tooling and on the license list that a bare <code>GPL-2.0</code> is ambiguous and that valid license-expressions SHOULD (and [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002311.html later, with SPDX 3.0, MUST]) supply a versioning operator.
+* Like “Gary's proposal”, but [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002126.html add] [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002308.html <code>compatibleWith…</code>] [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-October/002265.html metadata] so we can warn in tooling and on the license list that a bare <code>GPL-2.0</code> is ambiguous and that valid license-expressions SHOULD (and [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002311.html later, with SPDX 3.0, MUST]) supply a versioning operator.  In this case, the “license text but no grant” case would be require an explicit [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-October/002265.html <code>AMBIGUOUS</code> or <code>OR-MAYBE</code> operator].
 ) “Paul’s alternative proposal: provide 3 “hard-coded” options on the license list as follows:

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 * I found the license text (of a version) only and no other information
-) “Gary’s proposal” (same one as we’ve been talking about since beginning of this discussion):
+a) “Gary’s proposal” (same one as we’ve been talking about since beginning of this discussion):
 * keep plain identifiers on license list (remove the word “only” in full name); add “only” operator; provide documentation that the plain identifier is meant to be used in the instance to show you found the text of that license
 ) “Paul’s alternative proposal: provide 3 “hard-coded” options on the license list as follows:

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 == Agenda ==
-'''1) revisit the only/or later/? topic - see discussions from mailing list: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/thread.html'''
+'''1) revisit the [[Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation|only/or later/? topic]] - see discussions from mailing list: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/thread.html'''
 The notes below includes key points, but not all the discussion:
 * John: issue with plain identifiers is if there is just a copy of license with no statement, then there’s statement in license itself that any version of GPL can be used; the copy of a version does not specify the version by itself. in response to Jilayne’s comparison to the license w/binary blob example (where the license would prevail with no other info needed in the “files”) - GPL is more specific, so not a comparison