Skip to content

Technical Team/Minutes/2020-08-11

Archived page

Read-only copy of the SPDX wiki. The wiki is no longer active; its content has moved to https://github.com/spdx. Last edited 2020-08-12 by Jlovejoy.

August 11, 2020

Attendees

  • Kate Stewart
  • Thomas Steenbergen
  • Steve Winslow
  • Jilayne Lovejoy
  • Steve Winslow
  • Gary O’Neall
  • Rose Judge
  • Peter Shin
  • Brad Goldring
  • John Horan
  • Rose Judge
  • Vicky Brasseur
  • William Bartolomew
  • Mark Atwood

Topics:

  • Licensing profile - consolidation of license fields
  • Initial draft by Steve and Jilayne in Google Docs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k_2tSlFXvW_SbW-I1DcSEoCNBMQJd4FEFIQr6KCJuyU/edit#
  • Note: didn't really update section numbers
  • Note: Has not been reviewed by the entire legal team – will review in upcoming legal team meeting
  • Normalized naming (e.g. references to Spdx Document rather than Spdx File) - this needs to be done across spec
  • Focus on artifact fields - consolidation of license related fields for Package, Files, and Snippets. Not much to change for Document-License List Version field or filed in Other Licensing Info section.
  • Discussion on Declared License for Package – metadata
  • Thomas raised question on if the Artifact includes the metadata or if it is different
  • Discussion on the previous discussions
    • Maven POM files was discussed previously and general agreement that the POM license info would be declared but not concluded
    • POM file license information was not always accurate
  • Different scenarios discussed, general agreement that a binary distribution would be a different artifact from the bundle of source
  • Discussion on license information that is not completely in the file (e.g. jQuery which includes a link but not the license notice)
  • Some tools will fill in the actual license referred to
  • Should we document the examples for Declared and Concluded licenses?
  • Valuable information
  • More specific would be better, but would make it larger
    • Would be nice to have some additional documentation somewhere
  • Generally agree to move from the specific fields to the intro for the section
  • Discussion on None field for license
  • Should the field be renamed NONE_FOUND?
    • Concern it would break tools
  • General agreement that NONE means someone looked really hard for a license and couldn’t find one at all
  • In the case of “No Rights Reserved”, one would create a LicenseRef-
  • Discussion cookbook
  • Could create hover over in the spec
    • Concern about accessibility
  • Replacing references to Disjunctive license with “OR”
  • Continue discussion on the Legal team this Thursday
  • What is the name of the profile for licensing?
  • “Licensing”
  • Discussion on associating copyright owner with license
  • Thomas has a requirement to associate the license with the copyright owners
  • Current SPDX does not have a mechanism to retain the associations
  • Could use snippets to retain the association between copyright owners and licenses for specific code

Categories: Technical