Issues added based on this weeks Legal Call

2017-10-13 Thread Gary O'Neall
Greetings tech team, There is a request by the FSF and approved by the legal team to add a property to the listed licenses isFsfFree to indicate if a license is identified by the Free Software Foundation as a Free / Libre license. This would be a simple Boolean type. I was going to add a

Re: OpenJ9 license

2017-10-13 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote: > My understanding is that the Secondary Licensing provision in the EPL-2.0 is > not the same as dual licensing using an OR. From our FAQ (which we're still > working on): > >> The notion of Secondary

RE: Providing access to FSF license metadata

2017-10-13 Thread Gary O'Neall
> -Original Message- > From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:44 PM > To: Richard Fontana; J Lovejoy > Cc: Gary O'Neall; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal > Subject: Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at

Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata (was: Issues added based on this weeks Legal Call)

2017-10-13 Thread J Lovejoy
SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Oct 13, 2017, at 12:02 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:20:33AM -0700, Gary O'Neall wrote: >> There is a request by the FSF and approved by the legal team to add >> a property to the listed licenses

Re: [spdx-tech] Providing access to FSF license metadata (was: Issues added based on this weeks Legal Call)

2017-10-13 Thread Richard Fontana
W. Trevor King wrote: > I am against this in license-list-XML, for the same reasons I am > against our current osi-approved type: SPDX should not be a > canonical source of whether *someone else* has approved a license or > not. I'd much rather provide tools for Alice to start with an SDPX > ID

Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata

2017-10-13 Thread W. Trevor King
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:30:18PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > By the bye, one thing I'd find useful, either inside or outside of > SPDX, is some notion of correspondence of an FSF-approved license > with a counterpart OSI-approved, or SPDX-recognized, license. > > To illustrate, consider the

Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata

2017-10-13 Thread Richard Fontana
W. Trevor King wrote: > They also list the Expat license as free and GPL-compatible [5], and > it matches the SPDX MIT [6]. So you can say the FSF considers the > SPDX MIT free and GPL-compatible. Ah right - so not as interesting an example as others I was thinking of. I've been thinking about