Technical Team/Minutes/2016-03-15

March 15, 2016

Attendees

• Gary O'Neall
• Kate Stewart
• Jack Manbeck
• Scott Sterling
• Michael Herzog
• Kirsten Newcomer

License Expression Proposal

• Discuss example - use the example Jilayne uses in her presentation
• Updates are in the proposal at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qs0Q356hXMVSNBDg3oE_T2MIL11kE3HYLiuTZYTVMdU
• Decided to leave in "easier to read" since it does make the source files more concise
• Discussed license "respect" or "compliance" - decided this didn't really fit as a benefit - removed the bullet
• Removed "enforce" license compliance as it is a bit higher level and it informs rather than enforce
• Why not just use the ID? - Was discussed 2 weeks ago on tech call and we agreed to add expressions
  • Agree that no matter what the tag name, a license expression is used
  • Most on the call liked keeping the original tag - consistent with what is out there
  • Kate will post to the email list as others not on the call proposed the license expression tag. If not resolved on the email list, we will discuss and resolve next week.
• Representing multiple licenses - do we duplicate the language in other parts of the spec?
  • It is OK to duplicates since some readers will only reference this section
• Are the extra parans needed?
  • Was discussed on previous calls and we agreed that the parens was the least objectionable approach to solving some lexical analysis/parsing problems
• Re-worded last sentence on when to include non-SPDX license text
• Should this include copyrights? There is a standard for U.S. copyright formats. Could be a separate proposal.

Collab.

Plan - work through the document edits so far. Kate plans to publish the document the on or before Monday prior to the meeting. Afternoon, we'll work through the license markup language (Kris' proposal)