Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Minutes/2016-04-28"

Latest revision as of 18:11, 28 April 2016

1) New license requests and related topics:

BSD Source Code Attribution // BSD-Source-Code - we were going to try to get a hold of author of license before adding (re: name); have had no luck. Add it for next release - yes
BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear - discussion on mailing list based on whether this should be included on SPDX License List. There are really two variations of this, one which includes the term about restriction on licensing and one does not. If add, should add both.
Also a request regarding US Gov't works in the public domain. Anything on license list needs an exact text (to match against). If US Gov't has or comes up with such a thing, we can add this.
- This cut into discussion about whether we should have something in SPDX or not, which we have discussed before, see: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files_(DRAFT) - if we are going to revisit this, it is a bigger conversation for another day.
- Could provide a recommendation to use "LicenseRef-PublicDomain" as best practice. Does this go in spec? elsewhere?
Alan had looked at NPM issue that had wanted to use "proprietary" as identifier, but that is what LicenseRef is for. Alan will respond to the person who requested this.

2) XML templates for SPDX License List and process for review:

Kris’ put up a video explaining the process, posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_VoRQbDyEc
He also put up a video on how to use Git - point of this is to allow others to make the changes needed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsSjT4cmVEc
changes can also be made directly in Github: pull requests are coming from Kris' repository then to SPDX repository, so changes need to happen in Kris' repository - Kris may make another video to this end
wiki page for process description is here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing/ReviewXML
process: add new licenses to list as usual process; get on with review; will use "assigned to" function in Github to make sure we don't work over each other; bullet tag will leave for now, but may want to note this as we review
timing: can we get review done by next release at end of June; will need to make this determination on June 9th legal call
new process for new licenses: once switch to XML would be to have text for license and Kris envisions a web-based tool to convert to XML (instead of doing it all by hand)
We will have special call next week on May 5th at 10am mtn time to go over XML review; please watch video and read wiki page prior to call!!

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 * Kate Stewart
 * Mark Gisi
-* Brad Edmondon
+* Brad Edmondson
 * Paul Madick
 * Dennis Clark
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 * BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear - discussion on mailing list based on whether this should be included on SPDX License List. There are really two variations of this, one which includes the term about restriction on licensing and one does not.  If add, should add both.
 * Also a request regarding US Gov't works in the public domain. Anything on license list needs an exact text (to match against). If US Gov't has or comes up with such a thing, we can add this.
-** This cut into discussion about whether we should have something in SPDX or not, which we have discussed before, see:  - if we are going to revisit this, it is a bigger conversation for another day.
+** This cut into discussion about whether we should have something in SPDX or not, which we have discussed before, see: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files_(DRAFT)  - if we are going to revisit this, it is a bigger conversation for another day.
 ** Could provide a recommendation to use "LicenseRef-PublicDomain" as best practice.  Does this go in spec? elsewhere?
 * Alan had looked at NPM issue that had wanted to use "proprietary" as identifier, but that is what LicenseRef is for. Alan will respond to the person who requested this.