Hello spdx-legal / spdx-tech,
The minutes from the joint discussion last week about the Change Proposal
regarding DataLicense and CC0-1.0 can be found at [1].
Briefly, there was significant agreement from the meeting attendees that the
present requirement (from SPDX 2.3 and earlier) to mandate a DataLicense of
CC0-1.0 should be changed for SPDX 3.0. In a straw poll at the end of the
meeting, no attendees expressed interest in keeping this requirement as-is.
The attendees were generally split across two possible alternatives:
1) Keep the DataLicense field, but permit it to contain any valid SPDX
license expression
2) Get rid of the DataLicense field altogether
The original Change Proposal [2] was focused on option #1, but option #2 was
raised during the meeting and had significant support from several of the
attendees as well.
I’d encourage those of you with a view on this and a preference for one option
over the other to share your thoughts, preferably in the Change Proposal thread
at [2]. I’d strongly encourage that anyone who does so should read through the
meeting minutes at [1] if they weren’t in the meeting, in order to get the
context for the discussion that occurred.
If a consensus emerges for the preferred path forward through follow-ups in the
Change Proposal thread, then we may move forward with that option. If not, then
we may schedule a subsequent joint meeting to try to resolve this in the coming
weeks.
Steve
[1] https://github.com/spdx/meetings/blob/main/legal/2023-07-27.md
[2] https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/8
> On Jul 26, 2023, at 7:19 PM, J Lovejoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Just want to reiterate that we have an SPDX-legal call tomorrow and will be
> discussion the Change Proposal related to data license. Please see Steve's
> summary below and associated links and come prepared!
>
> Thanks,
> Jilayne
>
> On 7/14/23 12:16 PM, Steve Winslow wrote:
>> Hello spdx-legal and spdx-tech teams,
>>
>> As you may be aware, all SPDX specification versions since 1.1 have required
>> that SPDX documents have a “DataLicense” value of CC0-1.0. Details about
>> this in the latest-released spec are available at [1] and additional
>> background about the SPDX community’s past decisions is available at [2].
>>
>> Ria Schalnat has put together a draft Change Proposal at [3] proposing that
>> future versions of the SPDX specification remove the requirement that SPDX
>> documents and data be licensed under CC0-1.0. Further discussion and a
>> variety of opinions are available in the discussion thread in that issue.
>>
>> To move the discussion forward, we would like to invite interested
>> participants from the SPDX legal team and tech team communities to discuss
>> this Change Proposal at the next regularly scheduled Legal Team call, on
>> Thursday, July 27th, at 12:00 noon Eastern US time. Meeting information is
>> available at [4].
>>
>> For anyone who plans to attend and participate in the discussion, I would
>> ask that you please read [1], [2] and [3] prior to the call to familiarize
>> yourself with the details of the present state and the proposed changes.
>> Please also feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts in the thread at
>> [3] prior to the meeting.
>>
>> Best,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/document-creation-information/#62-data-license-field
>> [2] https://wiki.spdx.org/images/SPDX-TR-2014-1.v1.1.pdf
>> [3] https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/8
>> [4] https://github.com/spdx/meetings/tree/main#legal-team-meetings
>>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#5282): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/5282
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/100146787/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
