Re: meeting minutes 2019-06-13

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

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

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

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

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

: 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

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

Re: meeting minutes from today

: 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

x.org" 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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

RE: meeting minutes

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 –

Re: meeting minutes from today posted

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

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

Re: meeting minutes, meeting reminder

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:

Re: meeting minutes and action plan

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

Re: meeting minutes and action plan

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

Re: meeting minutes

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! >

RE: meeting minutes

[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 markup vs no markup debate. One

Re: meeting minutes

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 will look

Re: meeting minutes and update 10/10

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