New license request: WebM-Spec [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[reversi-fun]

1. License Name: WebM Bitstream Specification License
2. Short identifier: WebM-Spec
3. License Author or steward: Google WebM Project
4. Comments: This is BSD-3-Clase with Patent Cross-License.

The license url that FSF has called WebM has differentiated into three.
https://www.webmproject.org/license/software/
WebM Software License: This is a variant of BSD-3-Clause.

https://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/
WebM Bitstream Specification License:This is a license similar to the BSD-3-Clause, with the mention of the patent cross license.

https://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
Additional IP Rights Grant (Patents);
This looks like a variant that(WebM Bitstream Specification License) adds about 10 words to the previous license.

https://www.webmproject.org/cross-license/vp8/agreement/
WebM VP8 Patent Cross-License;
This is also similar to the previous(WebM Bitstream Specification License), but with a lot more clauses added.

Ask if these three should all be considered separate licenses or be considered variants.
5. URL: https://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/
6. OSI Status: Approved

[reversi-fun]

I add evidence that analyzed the similarity.

https://github.com/reversi-fun/license_doc_similality1/blob/master/data/lic_graph.fdp.svg

"WebM Additional IP Rights Grant" is same as "Google patent grant" at spdx.3.6.#646

[reversi-fun]

I add evidence that analyzed the similarity, for FSF/WebM related license {spdx/AMPAS,calculate-Linux/UCAR-BSD,BSD-3-Clause}

[reversi-fun]

I shows the beginning of confusion of licenses to be distinguished.
WebM-spec license similar to has following.

• "Mozzila-opsl-1.0"
• "facebook-patent-rights-2"
• "FreeType-patent"
• "MS-patent-promise"
• "google-patent-license-golang"

The above license The following license should be distinguished by some other identification name.

• "google patent license WebM"(=WebM Additional IP rights Grant)
• "google patent license webRTC"

The license names listed above are distributed with tools such as scanCode-toolKit.

[swinslow]

I see four different license requests here, addressing each in turn:

• Software License: https://www.webmproject.org/license/software/: From a cursory look this appears like it matches BSD-3-Clause when the SPDX matching guidelines are taken into account. If there are any substantive differences, please note them, otherwise this does not need to be added as a separate license.

• Google IP Rights Grant (Patents): https://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/: As you noted above, this falls into the bucket covered by issue New Exception Request: Google patent grant #646 and should likely be considered as part of that issue, together with the other similar Google patent grants.

• WebM Bitstream Specification License: https://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/: This is a specification license, not a software license. At present (to my knowledge) SPDX doesn't generally include specification licenses on the License List.

• VP8 Patent Cross-License: https://www.webmproject.org/cross-license/vp8/agreement/: This was separately submitted in New license request: WebM-Patent [SPDX-Online-Tools] #844 and as mentioned there I do not think it should be added to the License List.

Given the above feedback, unless there is a substantive difference in the Software License text that I'm not seeing, or unless others feel the Specification License should be added (which in that case might be more appropriate for a Legal Team discussion), I suggest this issue should be closed.

[reversi-fun]

What does the license that FSF calls WebM call with spdx?
It is important to map the license that FSF calls GPL-compatible to the license of SPDX.
I am satisfied with what was revealed by the similarity analysis of the license terms.

• WebM Software License : SPDX/BSD-3-Clause : GPL-compatible
• WebM Google IP Rights Grant (Patents) : SPDX/Google patent grants : GPL-Incompatible.
• WebM Bitstream Specification License : SPDX not includes ? : GPL-Incompatible.
• WebM VP8 Patent Cross-License : SPDX not includes New license request: WebM-Patent [SPDX-Online-Tools] #844 : GPL-Incompatible.

https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:WebM

• License:WebM
• URL http://www.webmproject.org/license/

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
FSF says that:
Google also provides a separate patent license (confusingly called an “Additional IP Rights Grant”) for patents that Google owns or controls that are necessarily infringed by their implementation of WebM.

---

"Specification License" vs "implementations of the WebM Specifications".
My understanding is as follows:

• Google said In a dispute with Oracle: API Specification may be "fare use" and not protected by copyright.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.
• Google WebM project says: WebM Bitstream Specification Licenses "implementations of the WebM Specifications".
  SO, "implementations of the WebM Specifications" is software.
  Constrain the implementation of similar software.
• If License Author of WebM("Google WebM project") and "Google inc." are different personalities,
  my understanding may be wrong.
  and License Author of "SPDX/Google patent grants" should be modified.

As a license that raises similar arguments, I will also propose a Java-Specification license #847 .

[goneall]

FYI - there is an online JSON file which provides a mapping of FSF licenses to SPDX ID's generated by the fsf-api.

I searched WebM and did not find an SPDX ID - which is consistent with @swinslow comment on not including specification licenses.

[reversi-fun]

I See. Consistency or policy does not change with just one sample.

But,,, About the possibility of
adding "License for Specifications with Reference Implementation"
instead of "specification licenses",
In the second case #847 ,
I hope to change
In the second example.

[swinslow]

Discussed on 2019-04-18 Legal Team call:

• Software license: appears to match to BSD-3-Clause and therefore will not be added as a separate license
• Additional IP rights grant: will be tracked in New Exception Request: Google patent grant #646
• Specification license: will have a broader discussion re: whether to include spec licenses
• Patent cross-license: agreed as not appropriate for inclusion on license list

[swinslow]

Discussed on 2019-06-13 legal team call, agreed to close.