If there is no special concern, how about following other packages, namely GPLv2 (or GPLv3?)?

If we have to give something even tentatively, I would agree. But if it is not mandatory, why don't we list those for which we already have good ideas, and say nothing about SPT?

for SPT, at least we need to confirm/define one for ETC.

Are you saying one for SPT, and one for ETC? Perhaps Kiyoto can comment on ETC. Again Kiyoto can comment, but in the today's telecon, Martin mentioned either GPLv2 or v3 will work, but as far as I understand v2 is the baseline in his mind to be inclusive of v2. It is unfortunate to have to define one for SPT while it is ill-defined. If there is one that is generic, then it sounds like what we should choose at this moment, but I am not familiar enough to give my fingers to it. Sorry.

I don't have any specific plan of license for ETC indeed, but I assume the same framework as DRP, that means GPLv3, because ETC is closely related to DRP and some codes of DRP are used in ETC. But again I don't have any clear answer at this moment.

rhl We will share datamodel for various packages in PFS, including 1D DRP, so I think we shall set as GPLv2 (at least; or dual with modified-BSD?). How do you think? and do you agree?

For SPT, let's set GPLv2 as a baseline.
Kiyoto Yabe I could not find any license term in original ETC (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5151 and referred), just says public accessible. I think (at least) you can set something on your modification, and I'd propose GPLv2.

For other unverified items:
2D DRP: swinbank rhl please confirm GPLv3 is your selection
1D DRP: I'll write email to LAM (also for accounts)
ETS: Kiyoto Yabe mxhf please confirm

csurace vlebrun any comment on 1D DRP?

For ETC, GPLv2 is OK as long as the datamodel uses the same license.
For ETS, GPLv2 is OK, I think. Do you have any comments from MPA side, mxhf?

All projects/repos have covered by updates at INFRA-64. -> DONE.