Re: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

[W. Trevor King]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:17:22PM -0800, Gary O'Neall wrote:
> >   binary-confidence-expression-operator = "AND"
> >   confidence-expression = license-expression space "CONFIDENCE" space "0." 
> > 1*DIGIT
> >   confidence-list = confidence-expression *(space confidence-expression) 
> > [space license-expression]
> >   / confidence-list space 
> > binary-confidence-expression-operator space confidence-list
> >   / license-expression
>
> [G.O.] My preference is for the "OR-MAYBE" approach just due to the
> simplicity.  In the audit use case, it is difficult to assign a
> confidence that has any precision.  The weighting would work for a
> tool where there is some algorithm that results in a weighting or
> confidence measure.

I agree that getting consistent confidence numbers is going to be
hard, and that without that (and maybe even with that), confidence
weights may not be very useful.  But with two license tools returning
confidence-weighted alternatives, I want to make sure we understand
their intended use cases before we commit to backwards-compat for a
binary OR-MAYBE.

Cheers,
Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

FW: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

[gary]

FYI - I forgot to cc the legal team on the follow-up email to the tech team.

 

Anyone on the legal team interested in the OR-MAYBE topic is welcome to join
the call tomorrow.

 

Gary

 

From: spdx-tech-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-tech-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of
g...@sourceauditor.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 12:05 PM
To: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org
Subject: [spdx-tech] Proposed topic for this week's tech call: Extend
license expressions to include OR-MAYBE

 

I would like to discuss adding an OR-MAYBE operator to the license
expression on this week's tech call Tuesday 10AM Pacific time.  This is a
proposal to support a couple of use cases raised by myself and David Wheeler
on the legal email list where it would be valuable to express a partial
conclusion to for a license where it is ambiguous which license applies.

 

Below is a proposed list of questions we can address:

 

- Do we agree the "OR-MAYBE" should be added?

- Do we agree with the term "OR-MAYBE", or should we go with a single
character like "?"?

- Should we disallow "OR-MAYBE" in declared license fields (it would only be
used in concluded license fields)?

- What is the exact definition of the "OR-MAYBE" we would include in the
spec?

- What version of the spec should we target?

 

This discussion originated on the legal list, but will have an impact on the
SPDX specification and the technical team.

 

The original proposal for this extension was an email from W. Trevor King on
the legal mailing list as part of the GPL unclear versions email thread:
https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-September/002233.html

 

A description of the auditor use case and how the OR-MAYBE helps can be
found here:
https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002359.html

 

The larger thread of use case descriptions can be found on the legal team
email threads for November:
https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/

 

Gary

 

 

-

Gary O'Neall

Principal Consultant

Source Auditor Inc.

Mobile: 408.805.0586

Email: g...@sourceauditor.com  

 

___
Spdx-tech mailing list
spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal