Legal Team/Minutes/2015-04-30

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Jilayne Lovejoy
  • Paul Madick
  • Dennis Clark
  • Mark Gisi
  • Alan Tse


1) SPDX 2.0 is on the verge of release. Mark had made recommendations in some of license-related areas of draft to remove explanation of disjunctive and conjunctive licenses, since that is now in the License Expression Syntax section; Jilayne to review

2) SPDX License List, 2.0

  • formatting on web pages now looks good on a variety of browsers and operating systems - yeah!
  • Sortable columns work, but it's not obvious - add a note to the top text. Sorts by upper case, then lower case - see if that can be fixed for 2.1
  • Discussed timing for 2.1 release (since 2.0 has been up for a month or so and we have new licenses to add already) - wait for now.
  • Also discussed general cadence for new releases of SPDX License List. At one time had made a goal to release on quarterly basis (unless no updates) or a very compelling reason to do a interim/off-schedule release. Decided to get back to this. Future releases and dates will be as follows:
    • v2.1 - June 30, 2015
    • v2.2 - Sept 30, 2015
    • v2.3 - Dec 23, 2015
  • Regarding adding more exceptions, aim for 2.1 at end of June, but Paul to check with Tech team to make sure that's enough time for review, etc.

3) New license request:

  • UPL will be added as of v2.1 (update to tracking sheet)
  • Spencer license - whether to include all 3 variations? yes
  • Lesser General Public License for Linguistic Resources - name and short name issue: it's not at all like LGPL. Decided to add and use "LGPLLR" as short identifier.
  • ISC - already on list, Dennis to notify requestor
  • do we have a tool that can compare a license text against all licenses on the list? Just that task? Would be useful to use when people request to add a new license. Jilayne to email a few people who might have already come up with a way of doing this.

4) License Headers - standard and non-standard

  • standard headers are defined field on SPDX License List, but not that many licenses have them
  • Mark's proposal to add a field that would make a recommended header, to aide developers.
    • Use of short identifiers for this?
    • Would need to make clear that this is not for compliance purposes, but more for convenience of identifying license info for file in automated way
    • something to consider for future, in meantime, have some issues to deal with for standard headers and post-2.0 - to discuss on next call...