THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE.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

Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration"

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Licenses to add?)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Licenses to add? ==
 
== Licenses to add? ==
  
−
''(Kirstin Newcomer to track progress and lead; GROUP to make decisions; may need to delegate research on particular licenses to others - ongoing, check in on this each call)'''''
 
  
−
# to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license (for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.
 
−
# Zend Engine License v2.0 – are there other versions of this license? See attached document below for summary of research and items to discuss → suggestion to add Zend Engine License 2.0 and use ZendEngine-2.0 as short identifier, but not enough people on call to decide - will discuss further on next call
 
−
# to add? "old" MIT? see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201
 
−
# Unlicense - see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicense&group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal
 
−
# add US Gov't works - add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler
 
−
# issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?
 
−
## what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers
 
−
## alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?)
 
−
# FLORA License - decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]
 
  
 
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
 
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"

Revision as of 19:21, 5 June 2013

Licenses to add?

Licenses Under Consideration
License Status Date Submitted Who Submitted Worksheet Notes
Zend Engine v2.0 Under Review Unicode License Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license (for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. more research needed to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.
"old" MIT Under Review See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201
Unlicense Under Review see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal
US Gov't works Under Review add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler
GPL-2.0 identifier Under Review issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?
  1. what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers
  2. alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?
FLORA On Hold decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31
Unicode More Research Needed to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. more research needed to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration&oldid=2529"