Legal Team/Minutes/2014-10-30

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Tom Incorvia
  • Paul Madick
  • Alan Tse
  • Dennis Clark
  • Jilayne Lovejoy


Similar minutes structure/content from previous meeting with appropriate updates here.

1) Revised schedule for 2.0 update - Tech Team has sent out revised schedule: Nov 14th for SPDX 2.0 draft and ready for review; Dec 1st - deadline for feedback; Dec 18th - SPDX 2.0 Spec Release Candidate; Feb 18th - official release

  • Would be nice to have license list with deprecated licenses, exception list ready for Nov 14th as well (ideally) for review period - with Dec 18th as date to "finalize" (matching templates done by then)
  • * what does pre-release of SPDX License List look like? special tag in Git so people can view there in master format by Nov 14th, but don't update HTML pages on website until Dec 18th? Jilayne to talk to Gary about possibility/appropriate tagging on Git
  • 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.
    • No update, as Mark not on call; location of current pass on spec for review, etc.? - JILAYNE TO SEND EMAIL to find out (done)

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

  • Mark to send out current draft of the FAQ

b) go over example for license expression syntax on wiki page:

  • with release, these should be looked at more closely and make sure there are no inconsistencies, errors, etc.
    • TO BE DONE NEXT CALL: Nov 13th

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.
    • clarified what this means: for web pages, have a line at bottom with explanation in header, move deprecated licenses to below the line and asterisk - indicate what version they were deprecated.
    • Need explanation text - explain these licenses have been deprecated and should now use license identifier from current license list with expression syntax (+, WITH) - DENNIS TO DRAFT FOR Nov 13th call

- how do we indicate on spreadsheet? use asterisk in full name there also (will need to add new field and define) - JILAYNE

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.

  • re: 2.0 exceptions versus later: could do 2.0 for pre-release and have option/consider more of the ones marked 2.1 for official release in Feb but need to check with tech team to make sure they are amenable - JILAYNE TO SEND (done)
  • will continue to track list here (with requests for new ones); Add lib tool exception to this list as per email on wiki (license under consideration) will just link to Google - DENNIS TO UPDATE AS NEEDED
  • libtool exception request from Clemens Lang - to be added to list for official 2.0 release

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

  • 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

  • TBD for Dec 18th time frame

h) coordinate with Gary on how exceptions list will be displayed and other changes to HTML pages on (Jilayne & Gary)

  • TBD for Dec 18th time frame

2) License Matching Guidelines - additional questions that have come up

  • - template? isn’t this really a GPL exception? move to exception list?
  • should be moved to exception list for official 2.0 release - DENNIS TO UPDATE SPREADSHEET AS SUCH
  • same for eCos (and deprecate from current list) - Dennis has marked for 2.0 in exception list (done)
  • Historic Permission Notice and Disclaimer - template or not? not used much and if someone omits the text as per what is indicated by the license, it would be a different license. templatize only the name (copyright holder) bits
  • Net Boolean Public License v1 - question re: “note” at beginning before preamble? just leave it, don’t create template
  • 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: and

  • 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.
  • exception is the text in the Exhibit... still not clear on how to deal with this - DISCUSS FURTHER ON NOV 13TH CALL

4) Zimbra License issue: Zimbra 1.3 is on SPDX list - 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: However, this (now) simply redirects to version 1.4 link:

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. (DONE for next release)

5) What to do about this BSD-3-Clause variation: 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.
    • no follow-up on this yet

NOTE - next call is Nov 13th - following is on Thanksgiving - discuss on 13th, whether we need to reschedule