Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Minutes/2015-05-13"

Latest revision as of 18:08, 14 May 2015

1) Standard Headers issues

overview of what the Standard Header field is and the usefulness of it and overview of issues
how do we accommodate for any L/GPL+ via the standard header now that we have license expression "+" operator? is this even a problem?
add markup indicating "or later" as omitable with a comment or note that if that language is present, then use GPL-2.0+
- where to put this note or comment? use existing Note field (we could add field later if needed, but doesn't seem necessary now)
for standard headers with variable text fields, use varible markup there too
adding markup to the Standard Header may also mean some edits to Matching Guidelines - review
Mark will do this work: 1) general review of Standard Headers for correctness; 2) add markup (variable and omitable); 3) add Note for GNU licenses re: "or later" and 4) will also review licenses that have more than one option for Standard Header; if it can't be dealt with via markup, then will raise on Legal call

2) Adding more license exceptions

Paul checked with Tech team as to whether adding more exceptions for 2.1 and end of June would be okay - Tech team affirmed :)

3) Package level license identification

Mark proposal: sometimes you might have various bits of a package under different licenses (e.g., main code under GPL; libraries under LGPL; documentation under FDL) - no way to accurately express this, b/c "and" is not really appropriate or comfortable (assuming "and" means all licenses apply to all files in package). Issue is at package level, not at file level. Should we have a new operator to indicate different licenses apply to different parts of the package that is not in an "and" way via a ";"? discussed this; will need further dedicated discussion

4) Joint call with Tech team to discuss NONE / NOASSERTION defintions and use in Spec

legal would probably join regular scheduled TEch team calls, maybe Tuesday, May 26 or June 2 at 10am PST
a couple people may not be available at either of these dates; check with Tech team leads and decide

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 '''3) Package level license identification'''
 * Mark proposal:  sometimes you might have various bits of a package under different licenses (e.g., main code under GPL; libraries under LGPL; documentation under FDL) - no way to accurately express this, b/c "and" is not really appropriate or comfortable (assuming "and" means all licenses apply to all files in package). Issue is at package level, not at file level.  Should we have a new operator to indicate different licenses apply to different parts of the package that is not in an "and" way via a ";"?  discussed this; will need further dedicated discussion
+) Joint call with Tech team to discuss NONE / NOASSERTION defintions and use in Spec
+* legal would probably join regular scheduled TEch team calls, maybe Tuesday, May 26 or June 2 at 10am PST
+* a couple people may not be available at either of these dates; check with Tech team leads and decide