THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx
- Jilayne Lovejoy, OpenLogic
- Tom Vidal
- Dennis Clark
- Jack Manbeck
- Zack White
- Paul Madick
1) update on Collab Summit schedule - schedule is up on LF website; license matching guidelines session scheduled for Tuesday, 2-4. Jilayne will send more detailed info a few days prior to meeting, so everyone can get up to date and ready to roll!
2) website update & feedback on nav naming: description of new site: redesign and more identifiable, separate wiki. on the new website design there will be a high level link to the LL with a few drop-down items. need some feedback on what to call the sub-nav:
- Overview </span>(wil go to this page: <a href="http://spdx.org/content/license-list">http://spdx.org/content/license-list</a>)
- Request New License </span>(will go to this page: <a href="http://spdx.org/content/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added">http://spdx.org/content/spdx-license-list-process-requesting-new-licenses-be-added</a>)
- Matching Guidelines </span>(will go to a finalized version of this page: <a href="http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-match-guidelines">http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-license-list-match-guidelines</a>)
As for the license inclusion guidelines (what Tom V is working on), I'm thinking instead of going on a separate page, those could go on the overview page (or on the request a new license page?) - thoughts? Anything missing?
- overview page seems like right place for the license inclusion guidelines because it's important info to know from the get-go
- naming links: names okay as suggested; "overview" preferred instead of "about"
- could the url links for the actual license text be case insensitive? (need to ask Gary)
3) additional language to LL description? (see proposed language in italics)
The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found open source software licenses for the purposes of being able to easily and efficiently identify such licenses in an SPDX document. The SPDX License List includes a standardized short identifier, full name for each license, vetted license text, other basic information, and a canonical permanent URL. By providing a short identifier, users can efficiently refer to a license without having to redundantly reproduce the full license.
By including a license on this list, the SPDX workgroup makes no judgement about its suitability or desirability. In general, the SPDX workgroup is supportive of the community standardizing on a small number of licenses, but this position in no way influences what is on the SPDX License List. The list is meant only to standardize references to the most commonly used, open source-like licenses, not to promote or discourage the use of any license.
- do we need this? if so, review of this draft text
- has there been confusion as to this in the past? not that anyone remembers, in terms of it being an issue
- speaks on behalf of the entire SPDX Workgroup - need to vet this with whole group (will need to do so with license inclusion guidelines as well)
- overall support for this statement
- maybe remove second sentence and just use first and third sentence; second sentence takes a position, may not be important for SPDX to take a position - all agreed on this
- remove "most" in third sentence
- for process: have review by whole group of what the whole "overview" page will look like - new part with old part, will need to proof-read whole thing for continutity, etc.
4) update from various project leads (Fedora list – Paul; license inclusion guidelines – Tom V.)
License Inclusion Guidelines (Tom V.) - discussed a few nuances and word-smithing; plan to post a page on the wiki with this and other text for the "overview" webpage - to be reviewed by legal team, then whole group.
Fedora list (Paul M.) - progress coming along slowly, hope to have some info in time for Collab Summit... TBD
5) New license request:
- Full name of license: The Code Project Open License 1.02
- License identifier: CPOL-1.02
- License URL: <a href="http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx">http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx</a>
- License text: see attached
- OSI approved: No
- Programs that use this license: The below programs are used in the wild under CPOL-1.02
- A(nother) C++ Registry Wrapper (<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/10729/A-nother-C-Registry-Wrapper">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/10729/A-nother-C-Registry-Wrapper</a>)
- CppSQLite 3.2 (<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/6343/CppSQLite-C-Wrapper-for-SQLite">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/6343/CppSQLite-C-Wrapper-for-SQLite</a>)
- Match your String with Wild Card Characters (<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/28051/Match-your-String-with-Wild-Card-Characters">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/28051/Match-your-String-with-Wild-Card-Characters</a>)
- Tree Control with Columns (<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/23692/Tree-Control-with-Columns">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/23692/Tree-Control-with-Columns</a>)
--> ADD TO LIST: all agreed this should be on there - surprising it wasn't to begin with. decided not to put on earlier versions since they seem to only have minor differences and text does not seem to be available.
4) Guillaume and Daniel's idea and other discussion on list serve of other list identifier (see email)
- idea of a prefix (letter and dash) - not so good, don't want to change structure of short name; but a "domain identifier" is not a bad idea (Daniel's email) - default of SPDX with possibility of identifying another license list
- idea that the "domain.short identifer" could be used in the SPDX file, instead of the generic license reference
- how do we ensure that there aren't duplicates? may end up with different trust levels for different domains - would get worked through over time
- is this really an tech team/extension of the spec question? would mean changing spec to accomodate this
- no one on call who was on this suggestion - what is the use case here? need more info to be able to intelligiently comment on/work through potential issues, etc.