THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx

Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Minutes/2012-08-08"

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(Convert to MediaWiki syntax)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Attendees:
+
== Attendees ==
−
<ul>
+
−
<li>Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic</li>
+
−
<li>Karen Copenhaver, Linux Foundation</li>
+
−
<li>Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus</li>
+
−
<li>Jack Manbeck, TI</li>
+
−
<li>Kirstin Newcomer, Black Duck</li>
+
−
<li>Michael Herzog, NexB</li>
+
−
<li>Ibrahim Haddad, Linux Foundation</li>
+
−
<li>Jason Buttara, Cisco</li>
+
−
</ul>
+
  
−
<p>AGENDA</p>
+
* Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic
 +
* Karen Copenhaver, Linux Foundation
 +
* Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus
 +
* Jack Manbeck, TI
 +
* Kirstin Newcomer, Black Duck
 +
* Michael Herzog, NexB
 +
* Ibrahim Haddad, Linux Foundation
 +
* Jason Buttara, Cisco
  
−
<p><strong>1) Update from last meeting on mandatory fields discussion</strong>
+
== Update from last meeting on mandatory fields discussion ==
−
<br> Karen gave a summary of last meeting's discussion (see posted summary here:  http://spdx.org/content/legal-team-meeting-minutes-2012-07-25.
+
−
<br> - with respect to use of SPDX trademark and what you have to do to use the trademark/call it an SPDX file - "mandatory" fields in terms of what fields have to be included in the file (regardless of how the field is populated) is different than what goes into the field (i.e. useful information or just indicated as blank or no assertion in some way)
+
−
<br> - the mandatory (included) fields should reflect the ideal scenario but HOW the fields get filled out needs to be flexible so that "no info" or "have not looked" is accommodated
+
−
</p>
+
  
−
<p><strong>2) Website move</strong>
+
Karen gave a summary of last meeting's discussion (see posted summary here: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-07-25]])
−
<br>Need general feedback - everyone please peruse and make note of things that need to be fixed, suggestions, things to add (better yet, make the changes or include the changes you want to see)
+
 
−
<br> - Jack is coordinating the larger effort to this end
+
* with respect to use of SPDX trademark and what you have to do to use the trademark/call it an SPDX file - "mandatory" fields in terms of what fields have to be included in the file (regardless of how the field is populated) is different than what goes into the field (i.e. useful information or just indicated as blank or no assertion in some way)
−
<br> - need help with legal part of site, in particular moving old minutes over from May to current (Jilayne - DONE)
+
* the mandatory (included) fields should reflect the ideal scenario but HOW the fields get filled out needs to be flexible so that "no info" or "have not looked" is accommodated
−
</p>
+
 
 +
== Website move ==
 +
 
 +
Need general feedback
 +
 
 +
* everyone please peruse and make note of things that need to be fixed, suggestions, things to add (better yet, make the changes or include the changes you want to see)
 +
* Jack is coordinating the larger effort to this end
 +
* need help with legal part of site, in particular moving old minutes over from May to current (Jilayne - DONE)
 +
 
 +
== Additional Licenses from FSF List ==
 +
 
 +
Paul did a first pass on this and Jilayne also added notes and checked against the Fedora list. Legal team to go through the licenses highlighted in blue text on the spreadsheet included below and decide which ones should be added.
 +
 
 +
* this process raises the question as to: should checking various other lists as part of the license addition process? And if so, which other lists (besides Fedora)? should also check Debian list
 +
* got through 20 of 30 or so to be reviewed. Most of which all agreed to add, a few were question marks, and a few were voted as "no" because the licenses seemed too obscure.
 +
* more research will be needed (in regards to suggested short identifier, other versions of license, etc.) will need to be done on some of these. a notation was added to spreadsheet as to what research would be needed.
 +
* will pick up last time with rest of list, then delegate volunteers to do research so that licenses can be actually added to list as per decisions of group
 +
* post-meeting feedback from Guillaume Rousseau that all licenses of Fedora list not already on SPDX LIcense List should be added (even the ones that aren't open source or Fedora calls "bad"?) → to discuss further on next call as well
  
−
<p><strong>3) <p>3) Additional Licenses from FSF List.  </strong>
 
−
Paul did a first pass on this and Jilayne also added notes and checked against the Fedora list.  Legal team to go through the licenses highlighted in blue text on the spreadsheet included below and decide which ones should be added.
 
−
<ul>
 
−
<li>this process raises the question as to: should checking various other lists as part of the license addition process? And if so, which other lists (besides Fedora)?  should also check Debian list </li>
 
−
<li>got through 20 of 30 or so to be reviewed. Most of which all agreed to add, a few were question marks, and a few were voted as "no" because the licenses seemed too obscure.</li>
 
−
<li> more research will be needed (in regards to suggested short identifier, other versions of license, etc.) will need to be done on some of these.  a notation was added to spreadsheet as to what research would be needed.</li>
 
−
<li>will pick up last time with rest of list, then delegate volunteers to do research so that licenses can be actually added to list as per decisions of group</li>
 
−
<li>post-meeting feedback from Guillaume Rousseau that all licenses of Fedora list not already on SPDX LIcense List should be added (even the ones that aren't open source or Fedora calls "bad"?) -> to discuss further on next call as well</li>
 
−
</ul>
 
 
see updated spreadsheet posted here for next call on Aug 22. Also to be discussed: LinuxCon, San Diego
 
see updated spreadsheet posted here for next call on Aug 22. Also to be discussed: LinuxCon, San Diego
 +
 +
[[Category:Legal|Minutes]]
 +
[[Category:Minutes]]

Latest revision as of 18:07, 5 March 2013

Attendees

  • Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic
  • Karen Copenhaver, Linux Foundation
  • Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus
  • Jack Manbeck, TI
  • Kirstin Newcomer, Black Duck
  • Michael Herzog, NexB
  • Ibrahim Haddad, Linux Foundation
  • Jason Buttara, Cisco

Update from last meeting on mandatory fields discussion

Karen gave a summary of last meeting's discussion (see posted summary here: Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-07-25)

  • with respect to use of SPDX trademark and what you have to do to use the trademark/call it an SPDX file - "mandatory" fields in terms of what fields have to be included in the file (regardless of how the field is populated) is different than what goes into the field (i.e. useful information or just indicated as blank or no assertion in some way)
  • the mandatory (included) fields should reflect the ideal scenario but HOW the fields get filled out needs to be flexible so that "no info" or "have not looked" is accommodated

Website move

Need general feedback

  • everyone please peruse and make note of things that need to be fixed, suggestions, things to add (better yet, make the changes or include the changes you want to see)
  • Jack is coordinating the larger effort to this end
  • need help with legal part of site, in particular moving old minutes over from May to current (Jilayne - DONE)

Additional Licenses from FSF List

Paul did a first pass on this and Jilayne also added notes and checked against the Fedora list. Legal team to go through the licenses highlighted in blue text on the spreadsheet included below and decide which ones should be added.

  • this process raises the question as to: should checking various other lists as part of the license addition process? And if so, which other lists (besides Fedora)? should also check Debian list
  • got through 20 of 30 or so to be reviewed. Most of which all agreed to add, a few were question marks, and a few were voted as "no" because the licenses seemed too obscure.
  • more research will be needed (in regards to suggested short identifier, other versions of license, etc.) will need to be done on some of these. a notation was added to spreadsheet as to what research would be needed.
  • will pick up last time with rest of list, then delegate volunteers to do research so that licenses can be actually added to list as per decisions of group
  • post-meeting feedback from Guillaume Rousseau that all licenses of Fedora list not already on SPDX LIcense List should be added (even the ones that aren't open source or Fedora calls "bad"?) → to discuss further on next call as well

see updated spreadsheet posted here for next call on Aug 22. Also to be discussed: LinuxCon, San Diego

Retrieved from "https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-08-08&oldid=2184"