Legal Team/Minutes/2011-01-26

<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica;">Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes - 20110126

 

 

 

SPDX Legal Worksteam Meeting Minutes – 26-January-2011

 

 

 

Attendees:

 

Esteban Rockett (Motorola)

Jilayne Lovejoy (OpenLogic)

 

Tom Incorvia (Microfocus)

 

Mark Gisi (WindRiver)

 

Steve Grandchamp (OpenLogic)

 

Andy Wilson (Intel)

 

Steve Mc (OpenLogic)

 

Paul Madick (HP)

 

Kate Stewart (Canonical)

 

Phil Odence (BlackDuck)

 

Michael Herzog (NexB)

 

 

 

Minutes:

- This meeting focused on revising the text of Section 5.3 consistent with the meeting of 14-January-2011.

- The text discussed is below.  

- Workstream members are requested to review and provided comments and/or bring comments to the next meeting scheduled for 9-February-2011.

 

***

 

Proposal:  Section 5.3 (License(s)) of the SPDX Specification will become 3 fields:

 

 

5.3a Concluded License(s)

 

5.3a.1 Purpose:  This field contains the license the reviewer has concluded as governing the file, if it can be determined.  The options to populate this field are limited to: (a) the SPDX standardized license short form identifier; this should be used when the concluded license is on the SPDX standardized license short list; (b) a verbatim copy of the concluded license when the concluded license is not on the SPDX standardized license short list (“non-standard license”); (c) “UNDETERMINED”; this should be used (i) if the reviewer has attempted to but cannot reach a reasonable objective determination of the concluded license, or (ii) if the reviewer is uncomfortable concluding a license, despite some license information being available; or (d) left blank; this should be used if the reviewer has made no attempt to arrive at a concluded license.  With respect to “a” and “b” above, if there is more than one concluded license, all should be recited.  If the recipient has a choice of multiple licenses, then each of the choices should be recited as a "disjunctive" license.  With respect to “c”, a written explanation must be provided in the License Comments field below.  Lastly, if the Conclude License(s) conflicts with the License Information in File, a written explanation must be provided in the License Comments field below.

 

5.3a.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to have the reviewer analyze the License Information in File and other objective information, e.g., “COPYING FILE”, etc., together with the results from any scanning tools, to arrive at a reasonably objective conclusion as to what license is governing the file.

 

5.3a.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one or many.

 

5.3a.4 Tag: "LicenseConcluded:"

 

5.3a.5 RDF: TBD  (include Disjunctive form here)

 

5.3a.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in Appendix I> | "FullLicense"-N | UNDETERMINED | (left blank)

 

5.3a.7 Example:

 

LicenseConcluded: GPL-2.0

 

 

 

5.3b License Information in File

 

5.3b.1 Purpose: This field contains the license information actually recited in the file, if any.  Any license information not actually in the file, e.g., “COPYING FILE”, etc., should not be reflected in this field.  This information is most commonly found in the header of the file, although it may be in other areas of the actual file.  The options to populate this field are limited to: (a) the SPDX standardized license short form identifier; this should be used when the license is on the SPDX standardized license short list and has no ambiguous or superfluous text; (b) a verbatim copy of the license information the file when the license information in the file is not on the SPDX standardized license short list (“non-standard license”); (c) “NONE”; this should be used if the actual file contains no license information; or (d) left blank; this should be used if the reviewer has not examined the contents of the actual files.  With respect to “a” and “b” above, if license information for more than one license is recited in the file, all should be reflected in this field.  If the license information offers the recipient a choice of licenses, then each of the choices should be recited as a "disjunctive" licenses.

 

5.ba.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide the reader with the license information actually in the file, as compared to the Concluded License field.

 

5.3b.3 Cardinality:  Mandatory, one or many.

 

5.3b.4 Tag: "LicenseInformation:" 

 

5.3b.5 RDF: TBD (not including disjunctive form, if multiple many should be specified )

 

5.3b.6 Data Format: <short form identifier in Appendix I> | "FullLicenseInformation"-N | NONE | (left blank)

 

5.3b.7 Example:

 

LicenseInformation: GPL-2.0

 

LicenseInformation: FullLicenseInformation

 

 

 

5.3c License Comments

 

5.3c.1 Purpose: This field is a detailed description of the analysis and any relevent background references that went in to arriving at the Concluded License(s) for a file.  If the Concluded License(s) does not match the License Information in File, such rationale must be recited by the reviewer in this field.  This field is also where an explanation must be recited if the reviewer placed “UNDETERMINED” as the Conclude License(s).

 

5.3c.2 Intent:  Here, the intent is to provide the reader with a detailed explanation of how the Concluded License(s) was determined if it does not match the License Information in File, is marked “UNDETERMINED”, or other helpful information for the reader relevant to determining the license of the file.

 

5.3c.3 Cardinality: Optional, single instance

 

5.3c.4 Tag: "LicenseComments:" 

 

5.3c.5 RDF: TBD

 

5.3c.6 Data Format: free form text than can span multiple lines, preceded with <text> and ending with </text>.

 

5.3c.7 Example: LicenseComments: <text> The Concluded License(s) was taken from the package level that the file was included in.  This information was found in the COPYING.txt file in the xyz directory. </text>

 

***

 

</p>