- Jilayne Lovejoy
1) Revised schedule for 2.0 update - what does a pre-release mean for license list? Tasks:
- license expression syntax and accompanying FAQs (Mark) - Mark not on call today, but items in progress. Watch mailing list for latest update in the next week and comment there
- remove deprecated licenses from list (Jilayne) - add note as such in Notes field??
- add exceptions list to license list (Jilayne) -
- finish matching guidelines template work (Jilayne, Daniel)
- what to do about Standard Header field - were going to ask if anyone uses it...
- update website as per changes to license list, etc. - Paul has made first pass on what might need to be changed
- coordinate with Gary on how exceptions list will be displayed and other changes to HTML pages on spdx.org/licenses
2) License Matching Guidelines - do these licenses need templates? http://spdx.org/licenses/PHP-3.0 - templatize names? stuff at end? http://spdx.org/licenses/PHP-3.01 - templatize names? stuff at end? http://spdx.org/licenses/RHeCos-1.1 - review for template need? http://spdx.org/licenses/RPL-1.1 - review for template? (preamble) http://spdx.org/licenses/RPL-1.5 - review for template? (preamble) http://spdx.org/licenses/RSCPL - template needed? http://spdx.org/licenses/SGI-B-1.0 - template needed? http://spdx.org/licenses/SGI-B-1.1 - template needed? http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL - template needed? http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL-1.2 - template needed? http://spdx.org/licenses/SPL-1.0 - template needed? http://spdx.org/licenses/WXwindows - template? isn’t this really a GPL exception? move to exception list?
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”