Legal Team/Minutes/2014-11-24

AGENDA

1) New license requests:

a) FTLK - FTLK (LGPL-2.0 with FTLTK exception), requested by Sam Ellis. As noted on the last call (and barring any objections from the Tech Team), we decided to go with all the exceptions marked as “2.0” on the exception list for the pre-release in December (which represents the exceptions currently on the License List) and then add the ones marked as “2.1” for the official release in February. FTLK is on the exception list, but noted for a later release. Move up for this release??

b) Intel Microcode, requested by Simon Glass. See original email for more info: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/983/match=intel

c) SIG GLX Public License, requested by Sam Ellis. This license is on the Fedora “bad” list. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/GLX_Public_License This license is referenced in recent releases of Oracle’s Java 8 software, for example, see Oracle’s third-party IP disclosure, see: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/thirdpartylicensereadme-java8-2168078.txt and search for the term ‘GLX’.

2) finish matching guidelines template work

a) NASA Open Source Agreement, 1.3 -http://spdx.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 has anyone seen this license filled in? Not sure how to do mark-up for this one.

3) Other license issues:

a) Mozilla Public License v2 (MPL-2.0 & MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception) http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0 & http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception - how to deal with for 2.0?

b) BSD with attribution (BSD-3-Clause-Attribution) http://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-Attribution - change full name to: BSD Acknowledgement and short identifier: BSD-Acknowledgement ? (also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/zlib-acknowledgement) - Is is confusing to have the word “with” in the full name? Should the “BSD with attribution” license short identifier really have “BSD-3-Clause …” as part of short identifier, when it’s really 4 clauses (same 3 clauses, plus an additional acknowledgment clause (or more like Apache 1.1 with one clause removed)?

c) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master Which has “...FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED.” in the disclaimer, where the usual language omits “AND NON-INFRINGEMENT” - Discussed previously and thought it better to not add and let it be a license ref, but wanted to get feedback from LF on how much it’s used.

4) remove deprecated licenses from list (Jilayne) - decided to move to a separate sheet. have begun work. need to draft some explanation text for website. Do we want these listed on website as list under main table on same page, or separate page??

5) license expression syntax FAQs (Mark) - please review: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/LicenseExpressionFAQ

6) examples for license expression syntax on wiki page: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples

7) add exceptions list to license list (Jilayne) - have added them, separate sheet in spreadsheet. will display as separate page on website with link from main licenses page and explanatory text at top, etc.

8) update website as per changes to license list, etc. - Paul has made first pass on what might need to be changed - TBD for Dec 18th time frame