Legal Team/Minutes/2015-05-13

From SPDX Wiki
< Legal Team‎ | Minutes
Revision as of 18:08, 14 May 2015 by Jlovejoy (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Jilayne Lovejoy
  • Mark Gisi
  • Paul Madick
  • Mary Harding
  • Dennis Clark
  • Sam Ellis
  • Jack Manbeck
  • Alan Tse


1) Standard Headers issues

  • overview of what the Standard Header field is and the usefulness of it and overview of issues
  • how do we accommodate for any L/GPL+ via the standard header now that we have license expression "+" operator? is this even a problem?
  • add markup indicating "or later" as omitable with a comment or note that if that language is present, then use GPL-2.0+
    • where to put this note or comment? use existing Note field (we could add field later if needed, but doesn't seem necessary now)
  • for standard headers with variable text fields, use varible markup there too
  • adding markup to the Standard Header may also mean some edits to Matching Guidelines - review
  • Mark will do this work: 1) general review of Standard Headers for correctness; 2) add markup (variable and omitable); 3) add Note for GNU licenses re: "or later" and 4) will also review licenses that have more than one option for Standard Header; if it can't be dealt with via markup, then will raise on Legal call

2) Adding more license exceptions

  • Paul checked with Tech team as to whether adding more exceptions for 2.1 and end of June would be okay - Tech team affirmed :)

3) Package level license identification

  • Mark proposal: sometimes you might have various bits of a package under different licenses (e.g., main code under GPL; libraries under LGPL; documentation under FDL) - no way to accurately express this, b/c "and" is not really appropriate or comfortable (assuming "and" means all licenses apply to all files in package). Issue is at package level, not at file level. Should we have a new operator to indicate different licenses apply to different parts of the package that is not in an "and" way via a ";"? discussed this; will need further dedicated discussion

4) Joint call with Tech team to discuss NONE / NOASSERTION defintions and use in Spec

  • legal would probably join regular scheduled TEch team calls, maybe Tuesday, May 26 or June 2 at 10am PST
  • a couple people may not be available at either of these dates; check with Tech team leads and decide