- Tom Incorvia
- Phil Odence
- Paul Madick
- Alan Tse
- Tom Vidal
- Mark Gisi
1) Revised schedule for 2.0 update - SPDX Core Team met and discussed the schedule for 2.0: proposed idea is to do a release candidate of 2.0 by mid-November, with the idea of getting people to start using it, testing, etc. and official release for Collab Summit in Feb. This way, by the time of the official release, we can present test case examples and have it more vetted since it's a big change. Legal Team need to sort out: what does a pre-release mean for license list what has to be done by Nov 15? What is not mandatory?
- Notes: pre-release would be helpful to have license expression syntax, exception list, skinny down version of license list and check with Gary. (Paul)
- Mark: need to define some things in the spec. (define once and use everywhere: none and no assertion). Mark Gisi drafting definition section and will circulate to legal group.
Tasks for 2.0:
a) license expression syntax and accompanying FAQs (Mark) - in progress. Watch mailing list for latest update in the next week and comment there 8 Mark to send out current draft of the FAQ
b) go over example for license expression syntax on wiki page: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples
- with release, these should be looked at more closely and make sure there are no inconsistencies, errors, etc. (TO BE DONE STILL)
c) remove deprecated licenses from list (Jilayne) - need to discuss if and how to add note as such in Notes field?
- put an asterisk, the note should say what version was deprecated, using lines at bottom of license list.
d) add exceptions list to license list (Jilayne) - still need to finalize list of initial exceptions; last we left off, we were going to only stick to the ones we had already on the list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dDF0ajVveUtRMGFseVVjWS1zV2tCNFE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
- list seems accurate as per those marked with "2.0"
e) finish matching guidelines template work (Jilayne, Daniel) - still need feedback on items in #2, that is, whether a template is needed (see list below)
f) what to do about Standard Header field - were going to possibly deprecate, but need to float idea to all SPDX mailing list to assess impact of doing do - NEED SOMEONE TO TAKE LEAD ON THIS!!
- Paul to send out note to tech team and legal team only.
g) update website as per changes to license list, etc. - Paul has made first pass on what might need to be changed - this can probably be done after Nov 15th
h) coordinate with Gary on how exceptions list will be displayed and other changes to HTML pages on spdx.org/licenses (Jilayne & Gary)
2) License Matching Guidelines - do these licenses need templates?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/PHP-3.0 - templatize names? stuff at end?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/PHP-3.01 - templatize names? stuff at end?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/RHeCos-1.1 - review for template need?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/RPL-1.1 - review for template? (preamble)
- http://spdx.org/licenses/RPL-1.5 - review for template? (preamble)
- http://spdx.org/licenses/RSCPL - template needed?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/SGI-B-1.0 - template needed?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/SGI-B-1.1 - template needed?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL - template needed?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL-1.2 - template needed?
- http://spdx.org/licenses/SPL-1.0 - template needed?
- --> no for all: No variants known in wild, no template
- http://spdx.org/licenses/WXwindows - template? isn’t this really a GPL exception? move to exception list?
- --> Notes: should be moved to exception list.
- General notes: should we ask others on SPDX license list regarding variants for requests. Template request mechanism. Maybe ask tool team what they think makes sense in regards to addt’l templates.
3) MPL-2.0 - how do we deal with the two variations in light of the new license expression syntax? see: http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0 and http://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception
- legal team proposes that “no copyleft exception” should be in exception list and deprecate license. How do we deal with GPL v3 section 7 addt’l permissions, we be should be consistent.
4) Zimbra License issue: Zimbra 1.3 is on SPDX list - http://spdx.org/licenses/Zimbra-1.3 This license uses “VMWare” throughout and states in the beginning: "VMVMware, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 3401 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 ("VMware”)” and at the end: "All disputes arising out of this Agreement involving VMware or any of its subsidiaries shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal or state courts of northern California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California.”
The SPDX License List also lists for another url: http://www.zimbra.com/license/zimbra-public-license-1-3.html However, this (now) simply redirects to version 1.4 link: http://www.zimbra.com/legal/zimbra-public-license-1-4
A merge-and-compare of version 1.3 and version 1.4 at this link, shows that it is the same license except: - “VMWare” is replace with “Zimbra” throughout; - VMWare is a Texas Corporation, as stated in the beginning of the license; and - at the end of the license, it states instead: "Zimbra 1.4 (not on SPDX list) - Zimbra, Texas Corporation, and "All disputes arising out of this Agreement involving Zimbra or any of its parents or subsidiaries shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal or state courts of Northern Texas, with venue lying in Dallas County, Texas."
What to do????
- For old link, we should remove it for 1.3. And for 1.4 we should add it to the LL since changes are substantive.
5) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master Which has “...FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED.” in the disclaimer, where the usual language omits “AND NON-INFRINGEMENT”
- We should talk to Karen C. and see if LF is going to continue using this. We prefer not to add and make it a license ref.