Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/Minutes/2013-02-28"

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<p><strong>Attendees</strong>:</p>
+
== Attendees ==
<ul><li>Dennis Clark&nbsp;</li><li>Phil Odence&nbsp;</li><li>Kirsten&nbsp;</li><li>Tom Incorvia&nbsp;</li><li>Jason Buttara&nbsp;</li><li>Zac White</li></ul>
+
  
<p>1) Linux Collab Summit, April 15-17 in SF
+
* Dennis Clark
</br>- who's going?
+
* Phil Odence
<br>- Yes: Paul M., Adam C., Jason B., Mark G., Dennis C., Jilayne, Phil
+
* Kirsten
<br>- maybe: Kirsten, Zac, Tom V
+
* Tom Incorvia
<br>- no: Tom I</p>
+
* Jason Buttura
 +
* Zac White
  
<p>We will have time for face-to-face meeting on Tuesday afternoon – topics?
+
== Linux Collab Summit ==
<br>License List Matching Guidlines - have no owner, so no progress since last year
+
<br>- Collab Summit allows ability to have cross-team inclusion; also a topic that better lends itself
+
<br>- probably need a couple hours for this (if longer, will need a break)
+
<br>--> Jack will schedule for right after lunch
+
<br>--> Jack and Kirsten to reach out to tech team in terms of inclusion
+
<br>--> Jilayne to reach out to Daniel German, Matt Germanprez, and someone from Fossology to ask them to be come
+
<br>--> Jilayne to draft a description/announcement for legal team, that can be pasted/used for other teams</p>
+
  
<p>2) Licenses to add to SPDX-LL:
+
April 15-17 in SF - who's going?
<br>any feedback for Kirsten's proposal for tracking? --> proposal sounds good, she will begin building new page for tracking
+
<ul>
+
<li>Affero 1.0 - see http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html --> ADD TO SPDX-LL, should have all versions, missed this one in first rounds</li>
+
  
<li>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</li>
+
* Yes: Paul M., Adam C., Jason B., Mark G., Dennis C., Jilayne, Phil
 +
* maybe: Kirsten, Zac, Tom V
 +
* no: Tom I
  
<li>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</li>
+
We will have time for face-to-face meeting on Tuesday afternoon – topics?
  
<li>German Free Software License (<a href="http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/index_html/lizenzen/en/D-FSL-
+
License List Matching Guidlines
1_0_en.txt"> http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/index_html/lizenzen/en/D-FSL-1_0_en.txt</a>); 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</li>
+
* have no owner, so no progress since last year
<li>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)</li>
+
* Collab Summit allows ability to have cross-team inclusion; also a topic that better lends itself
</ul>
+
* 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
  
<p>3) License Inclusion Guidelines – discuss latest revision; see email and attachment sent by Tom Vidal yesterday
+
== Licenses to add to SPDX-LL ==
<ul>
+
<li>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 </li>
+
  
<li>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
+
any feedback for Kirsten's proposal for tracking? → proposal sounds good, she will begin building new page for tracking
  
<li>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)</li>
+
* 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
 +
* [http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/index_html/lizenzen/en/D-FSL-1_0_en.txt|German 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)
  
<li>--> Tom V. to make revisions based on discussion and email and circulate to group (
+
== License Inclusion Guidelines ==
</ul>
+
  
<p>4) page added to explain discussion that has occurred several times regarding the idea of having a generic "public domain" short identifier. see http://spdx.org/wiki/dealing-public-domain-within-spdx-files-draft
+
discuss latest revision; see email and attachment sent by Tom Vidal yesterday
<li>maybe more explicit info on "how to handle public domain" (also add to any documentation/how-to documents)</li>
+
 
<li>--> everyone to review and send any feedback, word-smithing, etc. to Jilayne</li>
+
* 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
</ul>
+
* 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
</p>
+
* 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
 +
 
 +
== generic "public domain" short identifier ==
 +
 
 +
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
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Legal|Minutes]]
 +
[[Category:Minutes]]

Latest revision as of 20:07, 6 June 2013

Attendees

  • Dennis Clark
  • Phil Odence
  • Kirsten
  • Tom Incorvia
  • Jason Buttura
  • Zac White

Linux Collab Summit

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

  • Yes: Paul M., Adam C., Jason B., Mark G., Dennis C., Jilayne, Phil
  • maybe: Kirsten, Zac, Tom V
  • no: Tom I

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

Licenses to add to SPDX-LL

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)

License Inclusion Guidelines

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

generic "public domain" short identifier

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