THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx

Legal Team/Minutes/2014-10-02

From SPDX Wiki
< Legal Team‎ | Minutes
Revision as of 17:29, 2 October 2014 by Jlovejoy (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees

  • Jilayne Lovejoy
  • Alan Tse

Alan and I thought that 2 people are not enough to make decisions, so we figured we'd post the agenda, which will then be a guide for trying to get stuff done via email and for the next call.

Agenda

1) Revised schedule for 2.0 update - SPDX Core Team met and discussed the schedule for 2.0: proposed idea is to do a release candidate of 2.0 by mid-November with the idea of getting people to start using it, testing, etc. and official release for Collab Summit in Feb. This way, by the time of the official release, we can present test case examples and have it more vetted since it's a big change. Legal Team need to sort out:

  • what does a pre-release mean for license list
  • what has to be done by Nov 15? What is not mandatory?

* * we have 2 more calls between now and then: Oct 16th (Jilayne will not be available) and Oct 30th - so we cannot just rely on calls to get stuff done!!! **

Tasks for 2.0:

  • license expression syntax and accompanying FAQs (Mark) - in progress. Watch mailing list for latest update in the next week and comment there
  • go over example for license expression syntax on wiki page: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples - with release, these should be looked at more closely and make sure there are no inconsistencies, errors, etc.
  • remove deprecated licenses from list (Jilayne) - need to discuss if and how to add note as such in Notes field?
  • add exceptions list to license list (Jilayne) - still need to finalize list of initial exceptions; last we left off, we were going to only stick to the ones we had already on the list.
  • finish matching guidelines template work (Jilayne, Daniel) - still need feedback on items in #2, that is, whether a template is needed. Please review and comment via mailing list.
  • what to do about Standard Header field - were going to ask if anyone uses it... NEED SOMEONE TO TAKE LEAD ON THIS!!
  • update website as per changes to license list, etc. - Paul has made first pass on what might need to be changed - this can probably be done after Nov 15th
  • coordinate with Gary on how exceptions list will be displayed and other changes to HTML pages on spdx.org/licenses (Jilayne & Gary)

2) License Matching Guidelines - do these licenses need templates?


3) MPL-2.0 - how do we deal with the two variations in light of the new license expression syntax?

see: http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0 and http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception


4) Zimbra License issue:

Zimbra 1.3 is on SPDX list - http://spdx.org/licenses/Zimbra-1.3 This license uses “VMWare” throughout and states in the beginning: "VMVMware, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 3401 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 ("VMware”)” and at the end: "All disputes arising out of this Agreement involving VMware or any of its subsidiaries shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal or state courts of northern California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California.”

The SPDX License List also lists for another url: http://www.zimbra.com/license/zimbra-public-license-1-3.html However, this (now) simply redirects to version 1.4 link: http://www.zimbra.com/legal/zimbra-public-license-1-4

A merge-and-compare of version 1.3 and version 1.4 at this link, shows that it is the same license except: - “VMWare” is replace with “Zimbra” throughout; - VMWare is a Texas Corporation, as stated in the beginning of the license; and - at the end of the license, it states instead: "Zimbra 1.4 (not on SPDX list) - Zimbra, Texas Corporation, and "All disputes arising out of this Agreement involving Zimbra or any of its parents or subsidiaries shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal or state courts of Northern Texas, with venue lying in Dallas County, Texas."

What to do????


5) 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”

Retrieved from "https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-10-02&oldid=3372"