Legal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration

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)

1. 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.
2. 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
3. to add? "old" MIT? see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201
4. Unlicense - see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicense&group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal
5. add US Gov't works - add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler
6. 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?)
7. 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

Licenses Under Consideration

License	Status	Date Submitted	Who Submitted	Worksheet	Notes
Zend Engine License 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? 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?