From SPDX Wiki
- Jilayne Lovejoy
- Tom Vidal
- Dennis Clark
- Paul Madick
- James Roberts
- Mark Gisi
1) The next release of the license list is coming together and almost ready! We will discuss any outstanding issues (below) and also seek some volunteers for helping review the list before publishing.
- have not heard back from Fedora folks on outstanding questions there ...
- missing "+" or later variations for AGPL, GDL ... - not going add now because will be deprecated in next license list release
- zlib license issue: We have zlib License on the SPDX License List (http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html), which is OSI approved and on Fedora list (all the same license text and short identifier). However, OSI and Fedora call this "zlib/libpng License" - do we care that the full license names don't line up? especially consider that there is also a separate libpng license - http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt (which we have on SPDX-LL as libpng License (libpng)?
- we have it more accurately represented in regards to the full license name, the short identifiers are aligned (most importantly) - so no need to change, but maybe just point this out to Fedora and OSI for their information.
- need help reviewing for accuracy/second set of eyeballs before next release: Dennis volunteered to help; Jilayne will send him the .zip to review before official release (to look over in next week)
- matching guidelines and re-formatting - could use some help on this task generally: Paul may be able to help; will connect next week on details
2) Getting back on track for 2.0
- update and discuss roadmap going forward on next call to get back on track for 2.0 tasks - namely, License Expression Syntax (Mark) and further review of License Exception List (Dennis)
- standard headers issue: when we deprecate the + licenses (becuase will be represented with new license expression syntax "+" modifier) - we will lose the "or later version" text in corresponding standard headers (for GNU licenses) - what to do about this?
- does anyone depend on the standard header field? could we get rid of it? maybe throw this out on the legal list and tech list and see what people have to say
- it is a benefit to include the standard header as it gives something else (besides the entire text of the license) to search/identify the license on
- various discussion about this field and (standard) headers generally
- --> put out statement that we are thinking about removing this field and why - if someone has a reason for not removing, to say why and how to resolve)
- Jilayne to draft such email, have Paul, Dennis, Mark review and then send to tech and legal mailing lists