From SPDX Wiki
- Kristin Newcomer
- Bill Schineller
- Peter Williams
- Kate Stewart
- Gary O'Neall
- Resolve the naming differences based on the spdx-naming-resolution spreadsheet (Technical_Team/Field_Names)
- Resolve the complex licensing model – supporting non-std licenses
- Discuss ways to represent the RDF entities in the spec (e.g. artifactOf, DisjunctiveLicensingSet)
- Kate provided a new spreadsheet format with a “proposed” tab to focus in on the remaining items
- Discussed the SPDX version and agreed that, although a bit redundant in the RDF XML format, we can add a property spdx:specVersion.
- Creator/created – matched the name in the RDF to the tag (Creator)
- Need a creator class and possible a comment class to associate the comments with the creator – same general requirements for reviewer – Peter agreed to propose a model
- Package filename – since this isn’t a relative path, should be a different property, agree to change the name to spdx:packageFileName.
- URL: couple issues were discussed, conflict of uniqueness with spec “Unknown”, required field, redundancy with SourceInfo. Peter brought up a good point that if we don’t have URL being the same as the Package resource URI, there is no place to store package resource URI information in the tag value or spreadsheet. Agreed on property DownloadLocation property.
- Seen Licenses in All Files – discussed the change in terms and proposals, should update the bug to reflect the renaming
(2:00 continuation of the meeting)
Discussion of the complex licensing model
- A non-standard license would include text for licenses not in the standard license text and licenses not included in the file or package information. This would only be applicable for a concluded license. This resolves the scope issue.
- An issue was raised where we are losing some information on the structure of a license with this approach. We also will not be able to include the text of the standard licenses in the SPDX Analysis itself. We agreed that this issue can be resolved after beta.
- The proposal of associating text with the AbstractLicensingInfo object (in SPDX-model-v4.png) was discussed. We agreed to log this is a bug and discuss this after beta.
Back to the discussion on the name
- SeenLicense name – legal proposal is LicenseInfoInFile.
- Concern on consistency on the use of LicenseInfo.
- Decided to leave concludedLicense alone (prefer LicenseInfo)
- Synchronized 3.9 (seen licenses) with this terminology – see spreadsheet for final resolution.
- Note on the spreadsheet – a green cell indicates that this is the preferred terminology for the row. Other columns may need to be updated to synchronize with this cell.
- Copyright statement – agreed to change to copyright text to allow a more structured copyright statement in the future
- NonStandardLicense – changed to LicensingInfo
- LicenseID – discussed various approaches and issues – agreed to keep a property for LicenseID to map between the RDF/XML and non-RDF/XML formats in a consistent manner.
Agenda for next week
- Complete discussion on names
- Discuss ways to represent the RDF entities in the spec