THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx
Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Minutes/2017-11-09"
From SPDX Wiki
< Legal Team | Minutes
(Add the “operator metadata proposal”, since I think it addresses the concerns which motivate (2) while still allowing for a future ‘PROXY {text}’ operator) |
(Link back to earlier Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
== Agenda == | == Agenda == | ||
| − | '''1) revisit the only/or later/? topic - see discussions from mailing list: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/thread.html''' | + | '''1) revisit the [[Legal_Team/or-later-vs-unclear-disambiguation|only/or later/? topic]] - see discussions from mailing list: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/thread.html''' |
The notes below includes key points, but not all the discussion: | The notes below includes key points, but not all the discussion: | ||
* John: issue with plain identifiers is if there is just a copy of license with no statement, then there’s statement in license itself that any version of GPL can be used; the copy of a version does not specify the version by itself. in response to Jilayne’s comparison to the license w/binary blob example (where the license would prevail with no other info needed in the “files”) - GPL is more specific, so not a comparison | * John: issue with plain identifiers is if there is just a copy of license with no statement, then there’s statement in license itself that any version of GPL can be used; the copy of a version does not specify the version by itself. in response to Jilayne’s comparison to the license w/binary blob example (where the license would prevail with no other info needed in the “files”) - GPL is more specific, so not a comparison | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* current proposal is easier for tooling and also leaves room for extensibility or other operators (discussion of how proxy clause would work, for example) | * current proposal is easier for tooling and also leaves room for extensibility or other operators (discussion of how proxy clause would work, for example) | ||
| − | '''Net sum of call: | + | '''Net sum of call: possible proposals, all of which accommodate 3 options: ''' |
* this version only | * this version only | ||
* this or any later version | * this or any later version | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
1b) “operator metadata proposal” | 1b) “operator metadata proposal” | ||
| − | * Like “Gary's proposal”, but [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002126.html add] [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002308.html <code>compatibleWith…</code>] [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-October/002265.html metadata] so we can warn in tooling and on the license list that a bare <code>GPL-2.0</code> is ambiguous and that valid license-expressions SHOULD (and [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002311.html later, with SPDX 3.0, MUST]) supply a versioning operator. | + | * Like “Gary's proposal”, but [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002126.html add] [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002308.html <code>compatibleWith…</code>] [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-October/002265.html metadata] so we can warn in tooling and on the license list that a bare <code>GPL-2.0</code> is ambiguous and that valid license-expressions SHOULD (and [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002311.html later, with SPDX 3.0, MUST]) supply a versioning operator. In this case, the “license text but no grant” case would be require an explicit [https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-October/002265.html <code>AMBIGUOUS</code> or <code>OR-MAYBE</code> operator]. |
2) “Paul’s alternative proposal: provide 3 “hard-coded” options on the license list as follows: | 2) “Paul’s alternative proposal: provide 3 “hard-coded” options on the license list as follows: | ||
Latest revision as of 09:17, 14 November 2017
Attendees
- Kate Stewart
- Bradley Kuhn
- Bradlee Edmondson
- Alexios
- John Sullivan
- Dennis Clark
- Paul Madick
- Steve Winslow
- Mike Dolan
- Trevor King
- Gary O’Neall
- Alan Tse
- Jilayne
Agenda
1) revisit the only/or later/? topic - see discussions from mailing list: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/thread.html The notes below includes key points, but not all the discussion:
- John: issue with plain identifiers is if there is just a copy of license with no statement, then there’s statement in license itself that any version of GPL can be used; the copy of a version does not specify the version by itself. in response to Jilayne’s comparison to the license w/binary blob example (where the license would prevail with no other info needed in the “files”) - GPL is more specific, so not a comparison
- tension in how license list is used and different fields in spec - info in file v. conclusion; and outside an SPDX document - need to address both/all
- Trevor proposed enhancement to XML to flag error if use plain identifier (e.g., GPL0-2.0) which might only apply to conclusion fields
- could also add/make NOASSERTION as something that can be used as part of license list/expressions (not just within the spec/SPDX docs) - this would be helpful for more than this scenario.
- current proposal is easier for tooling and also leaves room for extensibility or other operators (discussion of how proxy clause would work, for example)
Net sum of call: possible proposals, all of which accommodate 3 options:
- this version only
- this or any later version
- I found the license text (of a version) only and no other information
1a) “Gary’s proposal” (same one as we’ve been talking about since beginning of this discussion):
- keep plain identifiers on license list (remove the word “only” in full name); add “only” operator; provide documentation that the plain identifier is meant to be used in the instance to show you found the text of that license
1b) “operator metadata proposal”
- Like “Gary's proposal”, but add
compatibleWith…metadata so we can warn in tooling and on the license list that a bareGPL-2.0is ambiguous and that valid license-expressions SHOULD (and later, with SPDX 3.0, MUST) supply a versioning operator. In this case, the “license text but no grant” case would be require an explicitAMBIGUOUSorOR-MAYBEoperator.
2) “Paul’s alternative proposal: provide 3 “hard-coded” options on the license list as follows:
- change current GPL-2.0 to GPL-2.0-only
- add GPL-2.0-or-later
- add GPL-2.0-text-alone (or something along those lines) to be used in the instance to show you found the text of that license)
Note: the use of people’s names is only to attribute who initiated the idea and aide in referring to the proposals :)
Need to carry on discussion of next release preparations, as well as this topic on mailing list.
Note: next call falls on Thanksgiving, so we will use tech team’s call time on Tuesday, Nov to carry on discuss so too much time does not pass!
