THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx
Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Minutes/2010-09-24"
From SPDX Wiki
< Legal Team | Minutes
(Convert to MediaWiki syntax) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | == Attendees == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | * Kate Stewart | |
| − | Kate Stewart | + | * Kim Weins (OpenLogic) |
| − | Kim Weins (OpenLogic | + | * Dave McLoughlin (OpenLogic) |
| − | Dave McLoughlin (OpenLogic) | + | * Peter Williams (OpenLogic) |
| − | + | * Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic) | |
| − | Jilayne | + | * Manny Wool (BlackDuck) |
| − | Manny Wool (BlackDuck) | + | * Mike Herzog (NexB) |
| − | Mike Herzog (NexB) | + | * Jeff Luszcz (Palamida) |
| − | Jeff Luszcz (Palamida) | + | * Dan German |
| − | Dan German | + | |
| − | + | == Notes == | |
| − | Notes | + | |
| − | + | * Kate opened with a review of the approach to use a table approach as proposed by Tom Calloway at LinuxCon for licenses with one link per license. The group was in agreement. | |
| − | + | * Kim asked If anyone had looked at layout from an RDF side to see if there were any issues, Peter responded that no one had reviewed it yet. Peter volunteered to review it when it was finalized. | |
| − | licenses with one link per license. | + | * Kate proposed the next order of business was: |
| − | + | ** setting up a couple examples and reviewing the layout | |
| − | + | ** look for volunteers to propagate the licenses in the wiki | |
| − | were any issues, Peter responded that no one had reviewed it yet. Peter | + | * Kim noted that she thought there were 2 broader issues first |
| − | volunteered to review it when it was finalized. | + | ** Creating a set of licenses so we can know what the mapping looks like (assuming the need for a minimum set for release of the first spec) |
| − | + | * Creating a process for adding licenses on an interim basis after the initial minimum set is created | |
| − | + | * Kim proposed a minimum initial set of licenses tied to the spec. Mike H and others argued that a set of licenses should not be tied to a spec as a minimum requirement for using the spec. The group was in agreement. | |
| − | + | * Mike H proposed the list of licenses be an “appendix” to the spec and we strongly recommend people use the licenses included in the appendix. The group strong agreed. Kate commented, that if we create a standard set recognized by the group then the community will most likely get behind it an support. Those conforming to SPDX should recognize the initial set published at least, but not limit to just the set ready at time of initial publishing. | |
| − | + | * Versioning. Group essentially agreed that the list itself would not have a version rather the version would change when there is a change in “vocabulary” | |
| − | + | * Comments field. The group discussed the concept of a comments field proposed by Tom Calloway. The group agreed to not use the field for no factual information or opinion-based comments. | |
| − | + | ** Kate called for a volunteer to document guidelines for populating the comments field. | |
| − | the need for a minimum set for release of the first spec) | + | ** Jilayne Lovejoy volunteered to take the task |
| − | + | * Kim proposed the concept of a subcommittee to manage licenses. Responsibilities would include: discuss which licenses to add, fill out templates, “approve” licenses to add to queue, manage approval process to add licenses, move licenses into list when approved. Note: group agreed that “approved” did not mean that a license met some minimum requirements, rather that it was appropriate for the list. | |
| − | + | * Kim proposed 2 ideas for the subcommittee role/process, that need further discussion. | |
| − | + | ** Committee owns the complete process, they choose, approve and add licenses | |
| − | and others argued that a set of licenses should not be tied to a spec as a | + | ** The group at large votes on licenses to add, the sub-committee approves and adds |
| − | minimum requirement for using the spec. | + | * Kate volunteered to work with Tom Calloway to finalize template and work with the RDF group to make sure it will be able to link together. |
| − | + | * Jilayne volunteered to marshal the license list | |
| − | + | * Group discussed and agreed to meet monthly to review license issues. | |
| − | strongly recommend people use the licenses included in the appendix. | + | |
| − | + | [[Category:Legal|Minutes]] | |
| − | set recognized by the group then the community will most likely get | + | [[Category:Minutes]] |
| − | behind it an support. | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | information or opinion-based comments. | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | to add licenses, move licenses into list when approved. | + | |
| − | agreed that “approved” did not mean that a license met some minimum | + | |
| − | requirements, rather that it was appropriate for the list. | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Latest revision as of 17:40, 5 March 2013
Attendees
- Kate Stewart
- Kim Weins (OpenLogic)
- Dave McLoughlin (OpenLogic)
- Peter Williams (OpenLogic)
- Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)
- Manny Wool (BlackDuck)
- Mike Herzog (NexB)
- Jeff Luszcz (Palamida)
- Dan German
Notes
- Kate opened with a review of the approach to use a table approach as proposed by Tom Calloway at LinuxCon for licenses with one link per license. The group was in agreement.
- Kim asked If anyone had looked at layout from an RDF side to see if there were any issues, Peter responded that no one had reviewed it yet. Peter volunteered to review it when it was finalized.
- Kate proposed the next order of business was:
- setting up a couple examples and reviewing the layout
- look for volunteers to propagate the licenses in the wiki
- Kim noted that she thought there were 2 broader issues first
- Creating a set of licenses so we can know what the mapping looks like (assuming the need for a minimum set for release of the first spec)
- Creating a process for adding licenses on an interim basis after the initial minimum set is created
- Kim proposed a minimum initial set of licenses tied to the spec. Mike H and others argued that a set of licenses should not be tied to a spec as a minimum requirement for using the spec. The group was in agreement.
- Mike H proposed the list of licenses be an “appendix” to the spec and we strongly recommend people use the licenses included in the appendix. The group strong agreed. Kate commented, that if we create a standard set recognized by the group then the community will most likely get behind it an support. Those conforming to SPDX should recognize the initial set published at least, but not limit to just the set ready at time of initial publishing.
- Versioning. Group essentially agreed that the list itself would not have a version rather the version would change when there is a change in “vocabulary”
- Comments field. The group discussed the concept of a comments field proposed by Tom Calloway. The group agreed to not use the field for no factual information or opinion-based comments.
- Kate called for a volunteer to document guidelines for populating the comments field.
- Jilayne Lovejoy volunteered to take the task
- Kim proposed the concept of a subcommittee to manage licenses. Responsibilities would include: discuss which licenses to add, fill out templates, “approve” licenses to add to queue, manage approval process to add licenses, move licenses into list when approved. Note: group agreed that “approved” did not mean that a license met some minimum requirements, rather that it was appropriate for the list.
- Kim proposed 2 ideas for the subcommittee role/process, that need further discussion.
- Committee owns the complete process, they choose, approve and add licenses
- The group at large votes on licenses to add, the sub-committee approves and adds
- Kate volunteered to work with Tom Calloway to finalize template and work with the RDF group to make sure it will be able to link together.
- Jilayne volunteered to marshal the license list
- Group discussed and agreed to meet monthly to review license issues.
