Legal Team/License Expression Review 1

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Overview

The SPDX Legal group will be holding a special break out session to review a number of software examples where the current 2013 SPDX licensing language syntax (i.e., license list + AND/OR operators) may not be sufficient to represent the licensing terms of the software generally. For instance the group will be looking at the many various kinds of special exception terms, the use of the ‘+’ in license names and programs derived from multiple source and library files, where each is potentially under a different license. The group will report back to the Legal and Tech working groups with its findings.

The Problem

SPDX data creators utilize an informally defined mechanism to represent the licensing terms of various different copyrightable software items such as source files, programs, libraries, packages, images, fonts, documentation and so forth. The current mechanism informally consists of the following parts:

  1. a license list with standard short names (e.g., constants such as GPL-2.0, BSD-2-Clause )
  2. a mechanism to define custom licenses - i,e., licenses not found on the standard license list (e.g., LicenseRef-23)
  3. a simple collection of boolean expression operators (e.g., AND and OR). Potential others may be needed (e.g., WITH-EXCEPTION, +)
  4. Use of parenthesis to establish order of precedence - e.g., (MIT AND (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause))

I refer to the current approach as informal because different parts were designed separately and all the parts have never been summarized holistically - i.e., that is, viewed as a single system. Some of these parts are define in the SPDX spec (e.g. operators AND and OR, LicenseRefs) while others are maintained in a separate license list (e.g., constants LGPL-2.0, BSD-2-Clause, GPL-2.0+) and yet other parts have been used but never formally defined (e.g., use of parenthesis).

What is missing is:

  • A formal description of a well thought out license expression language with more rigorous consideration and presentation of how the different components (e.g., operators and operands) can be combined to represent the licensing terms of most copyrightable software items (e.g., programs, images, packages, ...). For example, the creation of a single document that presents a holistic overview of the licensing expression mechanism with many insightful examples of source files, image files, libraries and packages and so forth.
  • A process by which additions, deletions and modifications can be made to the a formal license expression language over time enabling it to formally evolve.
  • A process to test (validate) the current (and future) constructs of a license expression language to ensure they are sufficiently expressive to represent most software licensing situations.

The existing informal mechanism currently used largely evolved based on intuition of various anecdotal situations. The objective here is to pursue a more thoughtful and disciplined approach of what a an effectively expressive licensing mechanism might include. The licensing expression language after all is one of the most important conceptual components of the SPDX specification.

Observations/Considerations (with Examples)

This section provides a brainstorming blackboard to record a myriad of observations and considerations to collectively help us understand the various issues and facilitate the selection of issues to focus on. Think of it as a broad casting feedback net where a fair amount of stuff caught in the net may be discarded.

  • There are various different GPL special exceptions not represented in the license list. What is the criteria for adding them to the license list? What about special exceptions for other licenses.
  • GPL-3.0, a particularly important license, has several additional optional terms, Section 7 (a)-(f), that are not represented in the license list. Should they be represented in the list? Should they be represented as exceptions?
  • What precisely is the GPL-2.0-only issue that Bradley Kuhn has raised. Examples?
  • Do we need a formal definition of what exactly a license on the license list is. For example:
    • Does it have to be an Open source license? What is the definition of an Open Source license (on the OSI list? Satisfies the OSI's ten requirements for an open source license?)
    • Is the list used largely for identification purposes? Should the list include friend commercial licenses that are widely used?
    • Does GPL-2.0+ really represent a license or is it more representative of as multi-license choice such as: GPL-2.0 OR GPL-3.0?
    • Should we allow the + to be applied to any license? For example, EPL-1.0+?
    • Do we make a clear distinction between a file license notice and a license? Although a notice can (and often does) represent a single license, notices be dynamically expressive where a license tends to be a more rigid entity.
  • Although we do want to resist removing licenses from the license list, it may be required under certain circumstances in order to get to a better place in the medium to long run. The inclusion of the LicenseListVersion field in the SPDX spec 1.2 does allow this to be done in a relatively clean way.
  • What is the right level of description for a package license? What does a package license mean? Should the concluded license be the conjunction of all the licenses found in the package? What if a package license is not compatible with one of more of the licenses of the files in the package?

Requirements (Proposal/Draft)

Here we present a list of "potential" requirements for a licensing expression language should support. For the sake of completeness, we include requirements that are potentially already supported in the current informal approach. Some potential requirements include:

  • Define the concept of a license expression operator (e.g., OR and AND)
  • Define the concept of a license expression operand as either a single license constant (e.g., LGPL-2.1, LicenseRef-23) or cont
  • Define the notion of a license expression. For example, a license expression can consist of a single operand license constant or an expression constructed by applying one or more operators
  • Effectively (and potentially elegantly) represent the myriad of different special exception cases (e.g., GPL-2.0+ with Bison Exception, )
  • Disjunctive license expression support - ability to define a multiple license choices (currently supported by OR operator)
  • Conjunctive License support - ability to define a situation where multiple licenses apply (currently supported by AND operator)
  • Provide an effective way to allow one to describe custom licenses (e.g., LicenseRef approach).
  • Supporting the licensing of images and fonts. For example, does the license list include licenses to cover non source items found in software.
  • Need to give the formal mechanism a formal name (e.g. SPDX Licensing Expression Language (SLEL)) so that it has a more formal existence and standing.

Examples

Example file notices that are not easily represented using the current license list and just AND/OR can be found here: File Notice Examples

Maintainer

10/2013 - Mark Gisi - Contact Mark if you cannot edit this wiki but would like to contribute to the discussion (Mark.Gisi AT WindRiver dot COM).