Legal Team/Minutes/2013-02-28

Attendees

April 15-17 in SF - who's going?

We will have time for face-to-face meeting on Tuesday afternoon – topics?

License List Matching Guidlines

have no owner, so no progress since last year
Collab Summit allows ability to have cross-team inclusion; also a topic that better lends itself
probably need a couple hours for this (if longer, will need a break)
→ Jack will schedule for right after lunch
→ Jack and Kirsten to reach out to tech team in terms of inclusion
→ Jilayne to reach out to Daniel German, Matt Germanprez, and someone from Fossology to ask them to be come
→ Jilayne to draft a description/announcement for legal team, that can be pasted/used for other teams

any feedback for Kirsten's proposal for tracking? → proposal sounds good, she will begin building new page for tracking

Affero 1.0 - see http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html → ADD TO SPDX-LL, should have all versions, missed this one in first rounds
MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (OSI approved, but not on SPDX-LL, see email from Tom Incorvia) → ADD TO SPDX-LL, should have all OSI approved licenses, even old ones
Reciprocal Public License v1.1 (OSI approved, but not on SPDX-LL, see email from Tom Incorvia) → ADD TO SPDX-LL, should have all OSI approved licenses, even old ones
Free Software License: see email from Till Jaeger) → question of whether this license is "used in the wild," site doesn't list any software available that uses it. is English language search going to find uses anyway? Till included note that it is created and backed by German state; seems to meet the OSI criteria → ADD TO SPDX-LL
these licenses will be given two weeks (until next meeting) for any objection by greater legal mailing list, then considered added to the SPDX-LL; they will appear on the actual license list after the next revision (probably end of March or early April)

discuss latest revision; see email and attachment sent by Tom Vidal yesterday

Tom V. provided a bit of background from last meeting to remind/inform anyone on call this week who missed; some feedback already provided via email
if a license does meet all the OSI criteria (even if not OSI approved) - then would it be added? would it matter if not "commonly used" or would that weigh in as part of the criteria or do we just add automatically? discussion
decided: if yes (meets OSI definition), then approve; if no, but it is close, then look at "is it commonly used" or by a commonly used project or any other such usage factors (e.g. approved by German state)
→ Tom V. to make revisions based on discussion and email and circulate to group

page added to explain discussion that has occurred several times regarding the idea of having a generic "public domain" short identifier. see Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files_(DRAFT)

maybe more explicit info on "how to handle public domain" (also add to any documentation/how-to documents)
→ everyone to review and send any feedback, word-smithing, etc. to Jilayne