Re: meeting minutes 2019-06-13

2019-06-18 Thread Mike Linksvayer
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:01 AM Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via Lists.Spdx.Org wrote: > As from June 2019, Joinup proposes a new solution: the JLA, a unique tool > allowing everyone to compare and select open licences based on their content. Looks well done! I see some more background material in

Re: meeting minutes 2019-06-13

2019-06-18 Thread Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via Lists.Spdx.Org
Hi Jilyane and all, Some interesting news presented by the European Commission (Jean-Paul de Baets) at the Sharing & Reuse Conference 2019 in Bucharest (June 11.) *The European Commission sharing site (Joinup.eu) is now interconnected with SPDX!* *This is done through the Joinup Licensing Assista

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-06 Thread Rob Guinness
Ok, thanks, Steve. I will try to help out. I have a bit of difficulty to participate in the calls due to my time zone, but I will also try to join those when possible. Cheers, Rob On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, at 3:36 PM, Steve Winslow wrote: > Hi Rob, anyone who is interested is welcome to participate.

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-06 Thread Steve Winslow
Hi Rob, anyone who is interested is welcome to participate. On the legal team biweekly calls we typically have a mix of attorneys as well as software engineers who are interested in FOSS licensing. The sorts of questions we look at when reviewing a new submission are things like: Does it meet the

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-06 Thread Rob Guinness
Hi all, Quick question: What type of expertise is needed to participate in the license review process? Kind regards, Rob Guinness FOSSID On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, at 3:07 PM, Steve Winslow wrote: > Hi all, echoing Phil's comments -- several people have indicated interest in > increasing the velocit

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-06 Thread Steve Winslow
Hi all, echoing Phil's comments -- several people have indicated interest in increasing the velocity of adding new licenses to the license list. I'd encourage anyone who shares this goal to participate in reviewing and commenting on requests and issues, and creating/reviewing the license XML files,

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-04 Thread Phil Odence
One consideration in this discussion is the practical limits of the legal team’s capacity. Adding a new license on the list requires a chunk of work and every license on the list adds incrementally to the maintenance burden over time. There’s been some great work done to putting infrastructur

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-04 Thread Rob Guinness
Hi all, I realize I am new to this group, but I just to add my two cents: We are using the SPDX License List within our open source auditing tools, and when a license is not on the SPDX list, we have to define our own license identifier, etc. This can lead to incompatibility with other tools be

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-03 Thread Kyle Mitchell
On 2019-06-03 20:06, David A. Wheeler wrote: > Phil Odence: > > And, also, bear in mind that SPDX can handle any > > license. Worst case, you identify a local license > > identifier and include the license. The goal of the > > license list is to minimize the need to do that, but at > > the same tim

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-03 Thread David A. Wheeler
Phil Odence: > And, also, bear in mind that SPDX can handle any license. Worst case, you > identify a local license identifier and include the license. The goal of the > license list is to minimize the need to do that, but at the same time, this > keeps the list from being a constraint. For tho

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-03 Thread Phil Odence
legal@lists.spdx.org" on behalf of Alexios Zavras Date: Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:48 AM To: "pode...@synopsys.com" Cc: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" Subject: Re: meeting minutes from today I want to point out that with the adoption of license namespaces a large number of such

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-03 Thread Alexios Zavras
: Re: meeting minutes from today I agree we should err on the inclusive side. In concept, I think the driver should be popularity more than OSS definition. It’s better for users to include commonly used open source-like license. JSON and WTFPL (maybe this complies, but it’s not on the OSI list

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-06-01 Thread Matija ?uklje
Die 1. 06. 19 et hora 00:58 Dave Marr scripsit: > +1 > > SPDX is only pragmatically useful to me if it generally reflects > the licenses I’m likely to encounter when vetting community > software. I agree. Although the question still remains what constitutes a popular license – does a non-FOSS l

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-05-31 Thread Dave Marr
: Re: meeting minutes from today CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. I agree we should err on the inclusive side. In concept, I think the driver should be popularity more than OSS definition. It’s better for users to include commonly used open source-like license. JSON

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-05-31 Thread Phil Odence
" on behalf of "mdo...@linuxfoundation.org" Date: Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:44 PM To: Jilayne Lovejoy Cc: "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" Subject: Re: meeting minutes from today On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM J Lovejoy mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>> wrote: 3)

Re: meeting minutes from today

2019-05-30 Thread Michael Dolan
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM J Lovejoy wrote: > > 3) Need more feedback on documentation updates - see email sent earlier > this week, comment on PRs in Github > >- discussed licenses that aren't squarely open source and variations >on how far fall out and how to deal with this potenti

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

2018-12-07 Thread Richard Fontana
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 07:20:15PM -0500, Michael Dolan wrote: > The Common Cure Rights Commitment (CCRC) which was based on the KES also > applies to an indefinite pool of projects. If one or a few of the companies > own all the copyright, my recommendation would be to just relicense the > project

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

2018-12-03 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 10:34 -0500, Michael Dolan wrote: > So if I can summarize my the situation we're discussing: > > 1) The additional permission is from one or more of many authors and > would only apply in a situation where that author(s)' code is being > enforced as part of a work. Yes. As

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

2018-12-03 Thread Michael Dolan
So if I can summarize my the situation we're discussing: 1) The additional permission is from one or more of many authors and would only apply in a situation where that author(s)' code is being enforced as part of a work. 2) The license for the file, any resultant binary or the work would not cha

Re: Plan to add Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement to SPDX additional permissions list (Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment)

2018-12-01 Thread James Bottomley
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 21:03 -0800, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Michael Dolan wrote: > > It solely modifies an individual's contribution with additional > > permissions. > > Indeed, that's precisely what every "additional permission" does > (going back to the Bison Exception in the 1980s). [...] I t

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

2018-12-01 Thread James Bottomley
On Sat, 2018-12-01 at 14:36 -0500, Michael Dolan wrote: > James thanks for that explanation it helps me understand the angle > you're thinking of using this for much better. > > Let me ask one follow-up if I may. Is it broadly the intention to > change the license for new files in the kernel going

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

2018-12-01 Thread Michael Dolan
James thanks for that explanation it helps me understand the angle you're thinking of using this for much better. Let me ask one follow-up if I may. Is it broadly the intention to change the license for new files in the kernel going forward to require the KES? I haven't had a conversation like thi

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

2018-12-01 Thread James Bottomley
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 19:20 -0500, Michael Dolan wrote: > I'm just catching up late on a Friday night and noticed this. I have > to say I'm surprised this suddenly went to last call for comments. I > guess I missed the prior discussion on the list about this and > apologize for showing up late. >

Plan to add Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement to SPDX additional permissions list (Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment)

2018-11-30 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
Michael Dolan wrote: > It solely modifies an individual's contribution with additional > permissions. Indeed, that's precisely what every "additional permission" does (going back to the Bison Exception in the 1980s). So, you've basically stated there the very definition of a "license exception".

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

2018-11-30 Thread Michael Dolan
I'm just catching up late on a Friday night and noticed this. I have to say I'm surprised this suddenly went to last call for comments. I guess I missed the prior discussion on the list about this and apologize for showing up late. I honestly do not understand the rationale for doing this. When so

RE: meeting minutes

2018-02-27 Thread Zavras, Alexios
I couldn’t join that meeting, but on the subject of FSF “free” field: let’s make sure that FSF’s own licenses (GPL*, LGPL*, GFDL*, etc.) are marked as “free”. I think their site lists only licenses by others, but our table seems… strange having an empty field for GPL’s free bit. -- zvr – From

Re: meeting minutes from today posted

2018-01-19 Thread Kate Stewart
Hi Dennis, We had a discussion about the monday SPDX meeting off-line this week, and there's not going to be critical mass for it on monday, so we'll just be having the breakout meetings on Friday. That being said, figuring out the agenda definitely needs to be sorted out for Friday. :-)

Re: meeting minutes from today posted

2018-01-19 Thread Dennis Clark
Hi Jilayne, SPDX-legal, Please reserve a little time at our next Legal group meeting on January 25 2018 to discuss planning for the Open Source Leadership Summit 2018. In particular, I would like to confirm that there will be SPDX meetings on Monday March 5 in addition to the general attendance d

Re: meeting minutes, meeting reminder

2017-07-06 Thread Michael Dolan
Hi Jilayne, thanks for sharing the minutes. I'd also thank Alexios in particular for pointing us to the correct COPYING file URL. He was correct and the website link for kernel.org we had sent was not correct. This Note is the one that also includes the reference to GPL-2.0. The correct URL is: ht

Re: meeting minutes and action plan

2016-09-16 Thread Brad Edmondson
Thanks Jilayne, I've done my best to push a couple of licenses in the last few days as well. I believe the lower-case spdx tag is almost entirely my doing, so apologies to the group for that! Kris, do you think you can programatically replace all the lower-case spdx tags with SPDX in the licenses

Re: meeting minutes and action plan

2016-09-15 Thread J Lovejoy
putting my money (or in this case, time) where my mouth is: just reviewed 3 licenses (that needed list tag fixes and were long), I am also fixing the lower case spdx tag when I come across it. 116 showing, of which 30 are labeled approved = 86 to go… :) J. > On Sep 15, 2016, at 3:15 PM, J Lov

Re: meeting minutes

2015-12-10 Thread J Lovejoy
We are not having a meeting in the 24th, Mark! ;) Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity. > On Dec 11, 2015, at 3:23 AM, "Gisi, Mark" wrote: > > I will not be able to attend on 12/24 regardless of the time. > > best, > - Mark > > > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org > [mailto

RE: meeting minutes

2015-12-10 Thread Gisi, Mark
I will not be able to attend on 12/24 regardless of the time. best, - Mark From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:38 PM To: SPDX-legal Subject: meeting minutes Hi All, Please check out the m

Re: meeting minutes

2015-10-29 Thread Dennis Clark
Hi Jilayne, Legal Team, I think the UberConference 10 people limit needed more emphasis in the meeting minutes, so I gave it a bullet of its own in the "next steps" section. Regards, Dennis On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:04 PM, wrote: > Great call today, thanks everyone! > > There so much good dis

RE: [SPAM] RE: meeting minutes

2015-09-01 Thread Kris . re
Point for point.. > [Gary] we did discuss and consider this but decided to go with the current > approach for two reasons: > a) Easier to maintain a single text file which generates the various formats Retaining the original text explicitly is not mutually exclusive with maintaining it in a sin

RE: meeting minutes

2015-08-31 Thread Gary O'Neall
Hi Kris, Both good points. Responses inline below. > -Original Message- > From: Kris.re [mailto:kris...@bbhmedia.com] > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 7:17 AM > To: Gary O'Neall; 'J Lovejoy'; 'Philippe Ombredanne' > Cc: 'SPDX-legal' >

RE: meeting minutes

2015-08-31 Thread Kris . re
- From: Gary O'Neall [mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 18:45 To: Kris.re ; 'J Lovejoy' ; 'Philippe Ombredanne' Cc: 'SPDX-legal' Subject: RE: meeting minutes Hi Kris, Philippe and all, The markup language for the templates was crafted in a way

RE: meeting minutes

2015-08-07 Thread Gary O'Neall
dx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Kris.re > Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 11:42 AM > To: J Lovejoy; Philippe Ombredanne > Cc: SPDX-legal > Subject: RE: meeting minutes > > There are two purposes at odds here and, I suspect, responsible for the &

RE: meeting minutes

2015-08-07 Thread Kris . re
rsion is beyond this discussion...) This solves everyone's needs. Kris -Original Message- From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 11:29 To: Philippe Ombredanne Cc: SPDX-legal Subject

Re: meeting minutes

2015-08-07 Thread J Lovejoy
Hi Philippe, Comments below: >> For the last two calls: >> >> http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-07-23 >> [...] >> 3) Mark-up bug raised on tech team call- bug filed requesting that the >> mark-up be >> done to facilitate automation vs. human readable. Good goal that tech team

Re: meeting minutes

2015-08-07 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:39 AM, J Lovejoy wrote: > For the last two calls: > > http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-07-23 > [...] > 3) Mark-up bug raised on tech team call- bug filed requesting that the > mark-up be > done to facilitate automation vs. human readable. Good goal that t

RE: meeting minutes and other updates

2015-05-05 Thread Gary O'Neall
Hi Jilayne and legal team, The 2.0 version SPDX tools already supports comparing license text against the standard licenses. Just use the command "MatchingStandardLicenses" followed by the name of a text file. It will report if the text in the file matches one of the SPDX standard licen

Re: Meeting minutes are posted

2015-01-10 Thread J Lovejoy
HI Daniel, Thanks for the follow-up. That’s helpful to know. I think we will need to do, along the lines of our discussion on the call this week, is to review these cases individually and then come up with a recommendation on how (if at all) we’d like to change things, e.g., in this case, mayb

Re: Meeting minutes are posted

2015-01-09 Thread dmg
Hi Jilayne, i looked into the Sleepycat license. You asked if others use it (I'll look into it, I think i have seen it used by others). but... One interesting aspect of this license is that because the copyright holder is no longer SleepyCat the current license in SPDX does not match the current

Re: Meeting minutes are posted

2015-01-08 Thread dmg
Hi Jilayne, i looked into the Sleepycat license. You asked if others use it (I'll look into it, I think i have seen it used by others). but... One interesting aspect of this license is that because the copyright holder is no longer SleepyCat the current license in SPDX does not match the current

Re: meeting minutes from today posted

2014-07-24 Thread James Roberts
Thanks, Jilayne. Quick correction: It is Roberts (with an s). In any event, most of you have probably seen my exchanges in recent weeks regarding the Licensing Interest Group of the IP Section of the California State Bar. If you are interested in working with us on any SPDX matters (or anything

RE: "meeting" minutes

2014-01-02 Thread zwhite
Thank you Original Message Subject: Re: "meeting" minutes From: Jilayne Lovejoy <lovejoyl...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, January 02, 2014 11:14 am To: zwh...@ententesoftware.com Cc: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> we are not.  We will meet on the 16th.  

Re: "meeting" minutes

2014-01-02 Thread Jilayne Lovejoy
we are not. We will meet on the 16th. New invite for 2014 to come soon! Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team lead lovejoyl...@gmail.com On Jan 2, 2014, at 11:12 AM, wrote: > Happy new year all. Are we meeting today, or skipping this one? > > Thanks, > Zak > > > Original Message

RE: "meeting" minutes

2014-01-02 Thread zwhite
Happy new year all. Are we meeting today, or skipping this one?Thanks,Zak Original Message Subject: "meeting" minutes From: Jilayne Lovejoy Date: Thu, December 19, 2013 11:39 am To: SPDX-legal not much of a meeting, as there w

Re: meeting minutes and update 10/10

2013-10-11 Thread Philip Odence
Thanks for your continued yeoman's (yeoperson's) work, Jilayne. Sorry I missed the last call, but was busy pitching SPDX at the GENIVI conference. A couple comments (with the caveat being that I missed the discussion): 1.1.2 Probably picayune but if someone put in an SPDX short identifier with

RE: meeting minutes links, really...

2013-09-26 Thread Tom Vidal
Looks like it was a great meeting. Apologies for missing today. Thomas H. Vidal, Esq. Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2250 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Direct Dial: 310.300.2950 Office: 310.300.2900 Facsimile