Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Minutes/2015-06-11"

Latest revision as of 21:57, 11 June 2015

Attendees

• Dennis Clark
• Sam Ellis
• Paul Madick
• Kate Stewart
• Jilayne Lovejoy
• Mark Gisi
• Phil Odence
• Alan Tse

Agenda

1) License exceptions - Looked at the exceptions marked for release for 2.1 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 and reviewed for active links, check text, naming, short identifiers

• already got feedback on naming change for Fedora Directory Server exception, which was changed to 389-exception as per Richard Fontana's suggestion
• discussed use of numbers in existing exceptions and the ones to add for 2.1 - decided to not use a version number unless there is one for the exception or some other explicit reason
• exception that was "BertOS" on list, is quite common; ended up changing name to something more descriptive (Macro and Inline Functions) due to use in old versions of GCC and other unrelated projects
• i2p - will add markup
• Clisp - decided to leave summary as part of exception text for now; can always add markup as "omitable' if need be later

We did not get through all of them, there are other that need some checking for v2.1 release, so they may not all make it on for this round. Outstanding questions that may be resolvable via email will have been highlighted in yellow in the Google tracking worksheet and will be sent via email to Legal list as follows:

1. Libtool exception - should text be just exception text, or the full notice as seen here? (because the exception text is sort of wedged in between the usual GPL header) http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libtool.git/tree/m4/libtool.m4
2. Nokia Qt LGPL exception 1.1 - confirmed that Nokia has a version number for exception, so keep "1.1", but the short identifier we have is not very short: - can we shorten to: Qt-exception-1.1 or Qt-LGPL-exception-1.1 or Nokia-Qt-exception-1.1 ??
3. Qwt-exception-1.0 - markup for project name at end of exception?

Questions to consider re: exceptions already on list:

• Bison-exception-2.2 - why “2.2” - we need a link for this, I can’t even find it in the Bison download
• 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?
• 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

2) New license requests: did not have time to get to, will be considered on next call. Open Gov't License also seems to have many variations, so more time for review and discussion will be needed there.

REMINDER: Tuesday, 16 June @ 11am Mtn time, there is a joint Tech / Legal team call on the definitions of NONE and NOASSERTION in the spec. More info will be sent for review prior to the meeting