- Jilayne Lovejoy
- Camille Moulin
- Dennis Clark
- Tom Incorvia
- Jack Manbeck
- Zac White
- Jason Buttura
- Phil Odence
- Mark Gisi
- Daniel German
1) LinuxCon is coming up! September 16-18 in New Orleans Paul, Phil, Jack will be there; Jason, Dennis are a maybe: Zac not going - SPDX workgroup will have a room for one of the days; legal team needs to think about what, if anything, we might cover whilst there
2) License matching guidelines update – see new page created re: process/instructions here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/License-templates Daniel has posted the first few templates to Google Drive with some questions (easier than uploading to the wiki), used web conference to discuss some of the issues that he found and further solidify the process of providing mark-up guidance.
- do we need specific markup for license title and copyright notice? These things are covered specifically and matching guidelines - is that enough or is more specific guidance needed? discussed and decided that guidelines are enough
- further question as to whether official url should have the title and copyright notice in the field called "license text"?
- went over other specifics of how to do markup; Jilayne to update the first few licenses as per discussion and then others can use as an example; put questions in comments in Google doc. Jilayne/Daniel to make sure team members have access to Google docs
3) SISSL license issue brought on list by Camille: we have SISSL (version 1.1), but there is also a v1.2
- need to determine if v1.2 is indeed a substantively different license. from subsequent email:
- v1.2 omits sections 9 (Limit of Liability), 10 (US End Gov't Users) and 11(Miscellaneous)
- v1.2 adds the following sequence to the end of section 3.1: "Additionally, in the event that the Modifications you create do not meet therequirements set out in this Section, You agree to comply with the Standards requirements set out in Exhibit B."
- And then also has different text for Exhibit B
- want to add license to SPDX License List, but how to deal with short identifier: v1.1 = "SISSL" if add v1.2 with short identifier, "SISSL-1.2" should we also change v1.1 short identifier from "SISSL" to "SISSL-1.1"?
- argument to change: consistent naming, neater, reduces potential confusion
- argument to not change: we have made a goal to not change short identifiers unless absolutely necessary; to change a short identifier messes up not only SPDX urls, and so forth, but also OSI urls and references; no way to know how many SPDX documents have been generated using that short identifier as well as others use of the SPDX LIcense List
- discussion that we might want to think about process of changing a short identifier, if/when that ever does need to happen; redirects, etc.
- decided to not change SISSL v1.1 short identifier now; argument for changing is not compelling enough; can always reconsider later if/when we have a process for doing so in place
- did not get to Ruby License issue on agenda; will cover via email