THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE.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

Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Current Projects and Issues"

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<p><strong>Current issues/topics (this is a general list and may not touch upon everything) --&nbsp;<em>updated May 16</em></strong></p><p><strong>1) Mission/Vision statement</strong> <br />A) Legal Work Group - revised version posted in 5/16 meeting minutes - to be finalized on 5/30 call</p><p>B) License List description and overview -revised version posted in 5/16 meeting minutes - to be finalized on 5/30 call&nbsp;</p><p><strong>2) Website updates and refresh</strong> <br />A) aligning language and updates on various parts of the current site:</p><ol><li>Specification refers to the license list as "Standard Short Names" &nbsp;- should be consistently referred to as the "SPDX License List"; also, the description needs to be revised and one of the links is probably not correct</li><li>License List info page&nbsp;http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list - updated as needed, Jilayne</li><li>License List main page&nbsp;http://spdx.org/licenses/ - calls it the "SPDX Open Source License Registry" - needs to be changed to "SPDX License List" &nbsp;- Gary or Martin? (add description (goal/vision) here too?)</li><li>add something about how we are coordinating or aligning with other license lists? (e.g. OSI, FSF, Debian, etc.) - either in its own section or FAQ?</li></ol><p>B) Website refresh - fill in pages, link over content ?? need update from Mark Gisi on this</p><p><strong>3) License List&nbsp;</strong> <br />A) License List updates for v1.16</p><ol><li>Add MPL 2.0 other header version (for time being to be consistent with GPL)</li><li>finish license text review of .txt files - still some to do</li><li>formatting/text issue for Cecill licenses in French</li><li>add US Gov't works - add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler</li><li>proposal to add some kind of short identifier for copyright notice only (and "all rights reserved"?" - Fedora has this, maybe adopt what they use?</li></ol><p>B) OSI updates from emails (changes to v1.16) and then summarize outstanding issues &nbsp;- Jilayne, in progress</p><p>C) Other issues (see issues column on latest License List download for details - to start covering with v1.16 update)</p><ol><li>GPL exceptions - we don't have them all, list some of the others and variations on text - can someone do some research on this issue?</li><li>various other more issues - see spreadsheet</li></ol><p>D) Community outreach and list coordination</p><ol><li>FSF license list match-up; found here:&nbsp;http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html -- licenses that need to be added? Jilayne has done initial pass - Paul to do further research and come up with list of those on FSF and not on SPDX for approval to be added or not</li><li>Fedora license list -- Jilayne has begun discussion with Tom Calloway, needs follow-up</li><li>Debian</li><li>Gentoo</li></ol><p><strong>3) License Match Guidelines &nbsp;</strong>- pick up where we left off and complete</p><p><strong>4) Formatting and "master list" for License List (i.e. actual license text files)</strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />Currently the "master" consists of spreadsheet with list + individual .txt files for license text field = downloadable zip file.&nbsp; This is then converted into html pages for website.&nbsp; Peter, Gary, and Jilayne have had initial discussion on this issue; to be discussed further with more fleshed out proposal</p><p>A) PROPOSAL: License text files formatted in HTML instead of .txt files as default; can convert from there into text file with tool if people want that too;&nbsp; Option to use HTML to indicate some of matching rules?</p><p>B) For back-end management of License List overall: proposal to use and GIT repository in background for management &nbsp;- easier tracking of changes and gets it off Jilayne's desktop</p><p><strong>4) Recommendations or guidance on how to best determine license for a particular file</strong><br />how to identify the license for an open source project - ex. Within the file versus whether there's a copying file on top of the directory → provide guidance/suggstion (industry practice?) that license in the file is more determinate than the license in the directory</p><p>Should the legal group aggregate industry best practices and come up with a group of guidelines and provide some influence on that?</p>
+
<big>'''SPDX Legal Team projects for 2015'''</big>  
 +
 
 +
We will try to not delete items, but mark them as "DONE" to serve as a record of progress over the course of the year.
 +
 
 +
LAST UPDATED: 5 May 2015
 +
 
 +
== Licenses Under Review ==
 +
* Owner: Dennis Clark
 +
* Timeframe: On-going
 +
* New license or exception requests are tracked here:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681
 +
 
 +
== Update & Maintain SPDX License List ==
 +
* Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
 +
* Timeframe: On-going
 +
* Add new licenses or make other changes to license list and associated web pages as needed.  Push changes to Git repository and coordinate with Gary to make sure new versions are tagged and uploaded to spdx.org  
 +
 
 +
== Standard Headers ==
 +
* Owner: ??
 +
* Timeframe: resolve for ??? release
 +
* the move to v2.0 creates some issues for the Standard Header field of the SPDX License List:
 +
# for the GNU family of licenses, the "or later" determination is made in the header text; pre-2.0, the GNU licenses were listed as two line items each, so the difference in the header (e.g., presence or absence of "or later') was accommodated in the Standard Header field for each license. As of 2.0 and with the addition of the SPDX License Expression syntax the 'or later' option is exercised via the + operator. In light of this, what do about the standard header?
 +
# Some Standard Headers have replaceable text. While the License Matching Guidelines are stated to apply to the Standard Headers, there is no markup in the Standard Headers - should there be? 
 +
# Some licenses have more than one suggestion for a Standard Header - how do we accommodate this?
 +
 
 +
== Fedora / OSI outstanding issues ==
 +
* Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
 +
* Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
 +
# Jabber Open Source License v1.0 – archived text here (http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf) is not the same as the OSI has on their site (it was OSI approved). What do we do about this? need to resolve with OSI (with goal of having on list b/c it was OSI approved and we endeavored to have all OSI licenses on SPDX list, even if old). license text also can be found at: http://code.google.com/p/jabber-net/wiki/FAQ_License
 +
# various OSI approved (but old or deprecated) licenses don't have corresponding link on OSI site; OSI to update and then SPDX to add link to SPDX-LL - check this??
 +
# other issues with Fedora list, identified when we went through that
 +
 
 +
== Fedora / SPDX short identifiers comparison and review ==
 +
* Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
 +
* Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
 +
* Need to finish creating spreadsheet with comparison chart and then send to / confer with Tom Calloway at Fedora
 +
 
 +
== Composite Licenses ==
 +
* Owner: Sam Ellis?
 +
* Timeframe: future
 +
* some licenses currently on the SPDX License List are actually composite licenses or license stacks; should these be broken apart and the SPDX License Expression used? Some discussion on this issue took place earlier this year, see: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-01-08
 +
* determined that this would require a case-by-case review and should be targeted for post-2.0 timeframe
 +
 
 +
== Add a Suggested Header field to SPDX License List ==
 +
* Owner: Mark Gisi
 +
* Timeframe: future
 +
* proposal to add a field for a recommended header for licenses that do not have a Standard Header. Some discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-04-30
 +
 
 +
== Community Outreach ==
 +
* what would this look like?
 +
 
 +
== Other projects from 2014 list ==
 +
=== Legal Team recruitment and initiation ===
 +
* how do we get more people involved?
 +
* when new people join, should we assign them an SPDX "buddy' to help answer questions and otherwise shepherd them into the group?
 +
* who to target and how to reach them?
 +
* ask for help from LF or via grassroots effort or both? other ideas?
 +
 
 +
=== Alignment with other license lists ===
 +
Coordinate with various other license lists to make sure SPDX has licenses from these lists and check short name matching (or create "translation" document if different)
 +
 
 +
==== FOSSology====
 +
owner: TBD assigned
 +
* coordinate with Bob Gobeille, see http://www.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki/MatchSPDXLicenceIDs
 +
 
 +
====Gentoo====
 +
owner: TBD assigned
 +
 
 +
====Suse====
 +
owner: TBD assigned
 +
* list found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqPp4y2wyQsbdGQ1V3pRRDg5NEpGVWpubzdRZ0tjUWc (courtesy of Ciaran Farrell)
 +
 
 +
=== Recommendations or guidance on how to best determine license for a particular file ===
 +
'how to identify the license for an open source project - ex. Within the file versus whether there's a copying file on top of the directory ? provide guidance/suggstion (industry practice?) that license in the file is more determinate than the license in the directoryShould the legal group aggregate industry best practices and come up with a group of guidelines and provide some influence on that?
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Legal]]

Latest revision as of 21:47, 6 January 2016

SPDX Legal Team projects for 2015

We will try to not delete items, but mark them as "DONE" to serve as a record of progress over the course of the year.

LAST UPDATED: 5 May 2015

Licenses Under Review

Update & Maintain SPDX License List

  • Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
  • Timeframe: On-going
  • Add new licenses or make other changes to license list and associated web pages as needed. Push changes to Git repository and coordinate with Gary to make sure new versions are tagged and uploaded to spdx.org

Standard Headers

  • Owner: ??
  • Timeframe: resolve for ??? release
  • the move to v2.0 creates some issues for the Standard Header field of the SPDX License List:
  1. for the GNU family of licenses, the "or later" determination is made in the header text; pre-2.0, the GNU licenses were listed as two line items each, so the difference in the header (e.g., presence or absence of "or later') was accommodated in the Standard Header field for each license. As of 2.0 and with the addition of the SPDX License Expression syntax the 'or later' option is exercised via the + operator. In light of this, what do about the standard header?
  2. Some Standard Headers have replaceable text. While the License Matching Guidelines are stated to apply to the Standard Headers, there is no markup in the Standard Headers - should there be?
  3. Some licenses have more than one suggestion for a Standard Header - how do we accommodate this?

Fedora / OSI outstanding issues

  • Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
  • Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
  1. Jabber Open Source License v1.0 – archived text here (http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf) is not the same as the OSI has on their site (it was OSI approved). What do we do about this? need to resolve with OSI (with goal of having on list b/c it was OSI approved and we endeavored to have all OSI licenses on SPDX list, even if old). license text also can be found at: http://code.google.com/p/jabber-net/wiki/FAQ_License
  2. various OSI approved (but old or deprecated) licenses don't have corresponding link on OSI site; OSI to update and then SPDX to add link to SPDX-LL - check this??
  3. other issues with Fedora list, identified when we went through that

Fedora / SPDX short identifiers comparison and review

  • Owner: Jilayne Lovejoy
  • Timeframe: complete by end of 2015
  • Need to finish creating spreadsheet with comparison chart and then send to / confer with Tom Calloway at Fedora

Composite Licenses

  • Owner: Sam Ellis?
  • Timeframe: future
  • some licenses currently on the SPDX License List are actually composite licenses or license stacks; should these be broken apart and the SPDX License Expression used? Some discussion on this issue took place earlier this year, see: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-01-08
  • determined that this would require a case-by-case review and should be targeted for post-2.0 timeframe

Add a Suggested Header field to SPDX License List

Community Outreach

  • what would this look like?

Other projects from 2014 list

Legal Team recruitment and initiation

  • how do we get more people involved?
  • when new people join, should we assign them an SPDX "buddy' to help answer questions and otherwise shepherd them into the group?
  • who to target and how to reach them?
  • ask for help from LF or via grassroots effort or both? other ideas?

Alignment with other license lists

Coordinate with various other license lists to make sure SPDX has licenses from these lists and check short name matching (or create "translation" document if different)

FOSSology

owner: TBD assigned

Gentoo

owner: TBD assigned

Suse

owner: TBD assigned

Recommendations or guidance on how to best determine license for a particular file

'how to identify the license for an open source project - ex. Within the file versus whether there's a copying file on top of the directory ? provide guidance/suggstion (industry practice?) that license in the file is more determinate than the license in the directoryShould the legal group aggregate industry best practices and come up with a group of guidelines and provide some influence on that?

Retrieved from "https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team/Current_Projects_and_Issues&oldid=3760"