THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE.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

Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Minutes/2011-09-21"

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(Convert to MediaWiki syntax)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<p><strong>SPDX Legal Team Meeting Minutes - 21 Sept 2011 </strong></p><p>Esteban Rockett, Motorola<br />Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic<br />Kim Wiens, OpenLogic<br />Terry Ilardi, IBM<br />Jordan Hatcher, ARM<br />Mark Gisi, Wind River<br />Adam Cohn, Cisco<br />Tom Incorvia, Microfocus <br />Kate Stewart, Canonical <br />Mansour Ghomeshi, Motorola <br />Michael Herzog, NexB</p><p>Linux.org still down; spdx emails also do not seem to be working…</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">(1) Discussion on "Modified MIT/CC-0/PDDL"; with populating Mark Gisi's spreadsheet and reminder from Karen on "why we initially avoided CC-0"</span></p><p>http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/</p><p>http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/</p><ul><li>Karen circulated a modified MIT license with comments as an option</li><li>issues came up at Vancouver birds of a feather discussion re: hesitation about using a new/unfamiliar license (PddL)</li><li>Mark Gisi maintaining a tracking document with pros and cons re: various license options so can see how we came to the final decision</li><li>Why not CC-Zero?</li><ul><li>Karen had raised concern by merely using CC-Zero might indicate there is copyright protection in data or an endorsement/agreement with European data laws o maybe we can diffuse this concern with some introductory language? E.g. "to the extent there are any rights… (description of rights)…"</li><li>will it imply that we believe data is copyrightable and that could create other repercussions?</li><li>CC-Zero does cover European laws, no gap in coverage; maybe makes more sense to present a legal tool around this, instead of debating; if take position of someone who receives the database and don't give them a license (to avoid) then they may have to assume they have to get © clearence, so as practical matter, better to give license up front</li><ul><li>Preface license with statement that comments and anything else that may be copyrightable according to local law - CC-Zero (or whatever) applies</li><li>i.e. "I'm not sure what's all in there, but whatever it is, I'm giving it to you under public domain"&nbsp;</li></ul><li>o would CC-Zero appease the feedback at the Vancouver birds of a feather</li><ul><li>more brand recognition for CC, so people more familiar with products by them</li><li>CC-Zero is shorter than PDDL is longer and not used as commonly, thus making CC-Zero more palatable even if PDDL does the same thing</li><li>Maybe good to go to various foundation and community guys at BOF and ask if this would work</li></ul></ul></ul><p><em>--&gt; Rockett, Karen, Adam, Jordan, Kim → to prepare the preamble and get that to legal group for review in a week, then Kim can bring this to foundation/community people to get feedback (or buy-in); with goal of closing on this issue by two weeks/next legal meeting </em></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">(2) Discuss "Confidentiality" treatments.</span></p><ul><li>Re: CC-Zero allowing confidentiality provisions without conflict?</li><li>3 states:</li><ul><li>no confidentiality at all</li><li>confidential for a certain period of time</li><li>confidential</li><li>issue more about SPDX trademark; ex. Motorola will use SPDX throughout, but if can't keep it confidential, then will still use it, but just won't call it "SPDX"</li></ul><li>strong reaction against tying trademark to this; engineers had negative reaction&nbsp;</li><ul><li>concern was around ability to make changes and contribute it back and still be SPDX (mostly)</li><ul><li>need to give people a proscribed way to add fields, customize it, address extensibility - if we gave some explicit way to do this, might it alleviate some of these concerns?</li><li>Always said we'd deal with extensibility with next version of spec&nbsp;</li></ul><li>maybe raise confidentiality separately than compliance/trademark issue o working on technical proposal to separate… ??</li></ul><li>putting aside how marking of file is done, how about an open-ended field to site confidentiality?&nbsp;</li><ul><li>Open-ended description/option seems fine to allow vendors to mark as needed</li></ul><li>Adam to get more feedback on what exactly was the concern around this</li></ul><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">(3) Discuss finishing license "templatizing" </span></p><ul><li>how do you know that two license texts that look the same are actually the same; Kate had sent link summarizing where we were on this thus far.</li><ul><li>Normalizing to case and spacing; no swapping paragraphs; no changing punctuation; replacement of "copyright holder" or "author" fields, etc.</li><li>Rockett, Jilayne, Kate - to dust that list off, make sure it makes sense and distribute to group for review and comment by rest of group</li></ul></ul>
+
== Attendees ==
 +
 
 +
* Esteban Rockett, Motorola
 +
* Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic
 +
* Kim Wiens, OpenLogic
 +
* Terry Ilardi, IBM
 +
* Jordan Hatcher, ARM
 +
* Mark Gisi, Wind River
 +
* Adam Cohn, Cisco
 +
* Tom Incorvia, Microfocus
 +
* Kate Stewart, Canonical
 +
* Mansour Ghomeshi, Motorola
 +
* Michael Herzog, NexB
 +
 
 +
Linux.org still down; spdx emails also do not seem to be working…
 +
 
 +
== Discussion on "Modified MIT/CC-0/PDDL" ==
 +
 
 +
with populating Mark Gisi's spreadsheet and reminder from Karen on "why we initially avoided CC-0"
 +
 
 +
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
 +
 
 +
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/
 +
 
 +
* Karen circulated a modified MIT license with comments as an option
 +
* issues came up at Vancouver birds of a feather discussion re: hesitation about using a new/unfamiliar license (PddL)
 +
* Mark Gisi maintaining a tracking document with pros and cons re: various license options so can see how we came to the final decision
 +
* Why not CC-Zero?
 +
** Karen had raised concern by merely using CC-Zero might indicate there is copyright protection in data or an endorsement/agreement with European data laws o maybe we can diffuse this concern with some introductory language? E.g. "to the extent there are any rights… (description of rights)…"
 +
** will it imply that we believe data is copyrightable and that could create other repercussions?
 +
** CC-Zero does cover European laws, no gap in coverage; maybe makes more sense to present a legal tool around this, instead of debating; if take position of someone who receives the database and don't give them a license (to avoid) then they may have to assume they have to get © clearence, so as practical matter, better to give license up front
 +
*** Preface license with statement that comments and anything else that may be copyrightable according to local law - CC-Zero (or whatever) applies
 +
*** i.e. "I'm not sure what's all in there, but whatever it is, I'm giving it to you under public domain"
 +
** o would CC-Zero appease the feedback at the Vancouver birds of a feather
 +
*** more brand recognition for CC, so people more familiar with products by them
 +
*** CC-Zero is shorter than PDDL is longer and not used as commonly, thus making CC-Zero more palatable even if PDDL does the same thing
 +
*** Maybe good to go to various foundation and community guys at BOF and ask if this would work
 +
 
 +
'''Action:''' Rockett, Karen, Adam, Jordan, Kim → to prepare the preamble and get that to legal group for review in a week, then Kim can bring this to foundation/community people to get feedback (or buy-in); with goal of closing on this issue by two weeks/next legal meeting
 +
 
 +
== Discuss "Confidentiality" treatments ==
 +
 
 +
* Re: CC-Zero allowing confidentiality provisions without conflict?
 +
* 3 states:
 +
** no confidentiality at all
 +
** confidential for a certain period of time
 +
** confidential
 +
** issue more about SPDX trademark; ex. Motorola will use SPDX throughout, but if can't keep it confidential, then will still use it, but just won't call it "SPDX"
 +
* strong reaction against tying trademark to this; engineers had negative reaction
 +
** concern was around ability to make changes and contribute it back and still be SPDX (mostly)
 +
*** need to give people a proscribed way to add fields, customize it, address extensibility - if we gave some explicit way to do this, might it alleviate some of these concerns?
 +
*** Always said we'd deal with extensibility with next version of spec
 +
** maybe raise confidentiality separately than compliance/trademark issue o working on technical proposal to separate… ??
 +
* putting aside how marking of file is done, how about an open-ended field to site confidentiality?
 +
** Open-ended description/option seems fine to allow vendors to mark as needed
 +
* Adam to get more feedback on what exactly was the concern around this
 +
 
 +
== Discuss finishing license "templatizing" ==
 +
 
 +
* how do you know that two license texts that look the same are actually the same; Kate had sent link summarizing where we were on this thus far.
 +
** Normalizing to case and spacing; no swapping paragraphs; no changing punctuation; replacement of "copyright holder" or "author" fields, etc.
 +
** Rockett, Jilayne, Kate - to dust that list off, make sure it makes sense and distribute to group for review and comment by rest of group
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Legal|Minutes]]
 +
[[Category:Minutes]]

Latest revision as of 18:44, 5 March 2013

Attendees

  • Esteban Rockett, Motorola
  • Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic
  • Kim Wiens, OpenLogic
  • Terry Ilardi, IBM
  • Jordan Hatcher, ARM
  • Mark Gisi, Wind River
  • Adam Cohn, Cisco
  • Tom Incorvia, Microfocus
  • Kate Stewart, Canonical
  • Mansour Ghomeshi, Motorola
  • Michael Herzog, NexB

Linux.org still down; spdx emails also do not seem to be working…

Discussion on "Modified MIT/CC-0/PDDL"

with populating Mark Gisi's spreadsheet and reminder from Karen on "why we initially avoided CC-0"

http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/

  • Karen circulated a modified MIT license with comments as an option
  • issues came up at Vancouver birds of a feather discussion re: hesitation about using a new/unfamiliar license (PddL)
  • Mark Gisi maintaining a tracking document with pros and cons re: various license options so can see how we came to the final decision
  • Why not CC-Zero?
    • Karen had raised concern by merely using CC-Zero might indicate there is copyright protection in data or an endorsement/agreement with European data laws o maybe we can diffuse this concern with some introductory language? E.g. "to the extent there are any rights… (description of rights)…"
    • will it imply that we believe data is copyrightable and that could create other repercussions?
    • CC-Zero does cover European laws, no gap in coverage; maybe makes more sense to present a legal tool around this, instead of debating; if take position of someone who receives the database and don't give them a license (to avoid) then they may have to assume they have to get © clearence, so as practical matter, better to give license up front
      • Preface license with statement that comments and anything else that may be copyrightable according to local law - CC-Zero (or whatever) applies
      • i.e. "I'm not sure what's all in there, but whatever it is, I'm giving it to you under public domain"
    • o would CC-Zero appease the feedback at the Vancouver birds of a feather
      • more brand recognition for CC, so people more familiar with products by them
      • CC-Zero is shorter than PDDL is longer and not used as commonly, thus making CC-Zero more palatable even if PDDL does the same thing
      • Maybe good to go to various foundation and community guys at BOF and ask if this would work

Action: Rockett, Karen, Adam, Jordan, Kim → to prepare the preamble and get that to legal group for review in a week, then Kim can bring this to foundation/community people to get feedback (or buy-in); with goal of closing on this issue by two weeks/next legal meeting

Discuss "Confidentiality" treatments

  • Re: CC-Zero allowing confidentiality provisions without conflict?
  • 3 states:
    • no confidentiality at all
    • confidential for a certain period of time
    • confidential
    • issue more about SPDX trademark; ex. Motorola will use SPDX throughout, but if can't keep it confidential, then will still use it, but just won't call it "SPDX"
  • strong reaction against tying trademark to this; engineers had negative reaction
    • concern was around ability to make changes and contribute it back and still be SPDX (mostly)
      • need to give people a proscribed way to add fields, customize it, address extensibility - if we gave some explicit way to do this, might it alleviate some of these concerns?
      • Always said we'd deal with extensibility with next version of spec
    • maybe raise confidentiality separately than compliance/trademark issue o working on technical proposal to separate… ??
  • putting aside how marking of file is done, how about an open-ended field to site confidentiality?
    • Open-ended description/option seems fine to allow vendors to mark as needed
  • Adam to get more feedback on what exactly was the concern around this

Discuss finishing license "templatizing"

  • how do you know that two license texts that look the same are actually the same; Kate had sent link summarizing where we were on this thus far.
    • Normalizing to case and spacing; no swapping paragraphs; no changing punctuation; replacement of "copyright holder" or "author" fields, etc.
    • Rockett, Jilayne, Kate - to dust that list off, make sure it makes sense and distribute to group for review and comment by rest of group
Retrieved from "https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team/Minutes/2011-09-21&oldid=1300"