On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:58 AM Heather Meeker <heatherjmeeker@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I managed to double book this time slot so I may not be able to join -- I will try to join partway. Here is my two cents:For software, I think it only makes sense to limit license selection to the "big 8" in open source -- BSD, MIT, Apache 2.0, GPL, LGPL, Mozilla, Eclipse, AGPL. There are lots of otherÂchoices among OSI-approved licenses, but many of them are not widely understood and therefore not good choices toÂmeet the goal of wide adoption.
ÂI don't disagree, adoption is everything and commonly used licenses contributeÂgreatly. Having said that, I would lean towards a *recommended* short list for consideration if it's still an openÂdecision at projectÂinception- at the end of the day the community should choose the license, they know their need better than anyone. If our use case includes projects arriving with existing licenses, I would posit we can not ask them to change to conform to our list.ÂÂ
For data, the landscape is nowhere near standardized, but the CDLA seems OK, and I think Microsoft has a similar permissive license, too. I do not think "copyleft data" is workable, and any kind of significant condition on data licensing makesÂusing the data for ML functionally impossible. Public domain dedications with backup licenses like CC0 should also work. But data should not be under software licenses.
+1Â
Â
HeatherOn Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:32 AM Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> wrote:Hi Jamie,ÂAssume you meant CDLA? Not really open source, but rather open data. An interesting thought for OASIS to also be supportive of open data projects, or projects that host an open dataset licensed under CDLA.ÂCLAs are indeed a pain and an inhibitor to drive-by PRs (bug fixes mostly) because you need to engage some lawyer (ahem). I can see CLA for OASIS members who join an Open Project and DCO for contributions as being sufficient for most cases.ÂMy $0.02ÂCheers,
Christopher Ferris IBM Fellow, CTO Open Technology
twitter: @christo4ferris | phone: +1 508 667 0402 | blog:Âhttps://developer.ibm.com/profiles/chrisfer/IBM Open Source white paper: https://developer.ibm.com/articles/cl-open-architecture-update/
ÂÂÂ----- Original message -----
From: "Jamie Clark" <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
To: op-advisory-council@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: "Guy Martin" <guy.martin@oasis-open.org>, "Claudia Rauch" <claudia.rauch@oasis-open.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Agenda for next Advisory Council meeting, Monday, 27 September, 11 am EST, 5 pm CEST, 4 pm BST
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2021 11:41 AM
Â
This Message Is From an External SenderThis message came from outside your organization.
Hello all. Looking forward to your feedback. Obviously we're happy to hear thoughts on Monday, but we're merely kicking off the consultation there. Public or private thoughts by email also welcome.ÂÂFor people who dislike 4 page documents, here's the TL;DR version: 1. Should we add more FOSS licenses to our Open Projects? Which ones? CLDA? AGPL? Does the license's source matter? Does their status within OSI matter? 2. Within our menu of permitted licenses, we're pretty hands-off about telling projects what licenses to use. Projects could get caught in their own webs of multiple-license conflicts. How well do we think this "moderated chaos" approach to license selection works? 3. We believe we'd be unable to submit GPL'd work to some entities, likely including ISO and some government procurement processes, due to their own requirements. But how will CC-0 public domain licensing go over? You may remember we chatted about CC-0 when we added it 18 months ago.* It's being used in some of our work.  As it matures, any further thoughts about applying CC-0 to technical content? 4. Do we need to simplify our OASIS CLAs? Or to differentiate more between individual contributors, vs entities who have their employees contribute, vs repo maintainers/ committers? Ours** currently look a lot like the 2017 Apache model.ÂÂcordially JamieÂ** https://www.oasis-open.org/open-projects/cla/oasis-open-projects-individual-contributor-license-agreement-i-cla/ -and- https://www.oasis-open.org/open-projects/cla/entity-cla-20210630/ÂÂ
James Bryce Clark
General Counsel
OASIS Open
Â
jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
Xing  LinkedIn  Twitter
Setting the standard for open collaboration. On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:13 AM Claudia Rauch <claudia.rauch@oasis-open.org> wrote:ÂHi everyone,ÂHere's the agenda for our meeting on Monday. We have two main topics we'd like to hear your ideas and feedback on.Â1) Consultation on Emerging IP issues and practices in Open Projects (Guest: Jamie Clark of OASIS)2) Brief update on establishing the OASIS Open Strategy Working GroupÂPlease let me know if there is any other topic you'd like to suggest for this meeting.ÂAnd just in case, here's the Zoom link for the meeting: https://zoom.us/j/4071484044?pwd=RHAwaXhiNWo3OW1YUkZZUlE2c2JQdz09ÂVery much looking forward to talking to you all on Monday,Claudia
    Â
ClaudiaÂRauch
Open Projects Program Manager
OASIS Open
  Â
Pronouns: She/Her
Timezone: GMT+2
Website: www.oasis-open.org Â
--Heather Meeker 510-463-1116
DeborahÂBryant
Senior Director Open Source Program Office
Office of The CTO
dbryant@redhat.com ÂÂT:Â650.254.4033ââ ÂÂIM:Â@debbryant
@redhatopen