Re: Past and preview License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

[W. Trevor King]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:04:05PM -0400, Brad Edmondson wrote:
> I'm in favor of solving this (making html available for old versions
> of the license list). I think it will help with adoption too,
> especially as we move back to a more frequent release cadence.
>
> Perhaps add to the errata issue? Or file a separate issue?

I think the existing [1] (from last week) covers this issue.  I'm
arguing against addressing this in LicenseListPublisher, but I don't
think we want multiple GitHub issues about past/preview HTML going at
once ;).

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://github.com/spdx/LicenseListPublisher/issues/11

-- 
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

Re: Past and preview License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

[Brad Edmondson]

I'm in favor of solving this (making html available for old versions of the
license list). I think it will help with adoption too, especially as we
move back to a more frequent release cadence.

Perhaps add to the errata issue? Or file a separate issue?

--
Brad Edmondson, *Esq.*
512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:00 PM, W. Trevor King  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:14:03PM -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> > We are pushing new versions of the license lists but we are NOT
> > keeping online the previous versions. They are only in git repos.
> > I think it would help a lot adopters to have all the versions (at
> > least starting with 2.6 and up) available online on the license list
> > web page(s).
>
> An easy way to do this would be to push our website HTML (e.g. [1]) to
> the gh-pages branch of license-list-data.  I've mocked that up in
> [2,3], and you can see old versions of the list in [4,5,…].
>
> > It could also make sense as a further refinement to publish a
> > preview of a new version list for comments/heads up before it
> > becomes the latest.
>
> You can do this with the gh-pages approach too [6,7], although someone
> (possibly a robot) would need to bump gh-pages after each master
> commit (or at least whenever you wanted to refresh the preview).
>
> If this approach seems useful, someone with license-list-data write
> access just needs to push my gh-pages branch [8] to the main
> repository.
>
> Cheers,
> Trevor
>
> [1]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/blob/v2.6/website/0BSD
> [2]: https://wking.github.io/license-list-data/
> [3]: https://github.com/wking/license-list-data/commit/
> c112d15c76e8c2f0a5c15eca8719a81a765a631f
> [4]: https://wking.github.io/license-list-data/v2.6/website/
> [5]: https://wking.github.io/license-list-data/v3.0/website/
> [6]: https://wking.github.io/license-list-data/dev/website/
> [7]: https://github.com/wking/license-list-data/commit/
> 1f7322894a9e3a2a233eca9250549d3cd59f5eeb
> [8]: https://github.com/wking/license-list-data/tree/gh-pages
>
> --
> 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
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

RE: Past and current License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

[gary]

I have attempted to replicate the email conversation into a github issue: 
https://github.com/spdx/LicenseListPublisher/issues/11

Feel free to clarify or add any comments to the issue.

I probably won't have time to get this working before 3.1, but I should be able 
to get to it within the next few weeks.

Gary

> -Original Message-
> From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org  boun...@lists.spdx.org> On Behalf Of W. Trevor King
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:01 AM
> To: Mark D. Baushke <m...@juniper.net>
> Cc: 'SPDX-legal' <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
> Subject: Past and current License List releases (was: 3.1 release)
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> > An alternative would be to use an ISO 8601 to express time.
> > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
> >
> > Version: 3.0 published on 2017-12-28
> >
> > Version: 3.0 of 2017-12-28
> 
> +1 to using ISO dates.
> 
> It would also be nice to be able to link to [1] in a way that will survive 3.1
> getting cut.
> 
> About the URL template itself, I'd rather not repeat “archive”, and “archive”
> no longer feels quite right once you have an entry for the current release.  I
> also think the /licenses/ prefix already covers “ll” (which I'm guessing is 
> for
> “License List”).  Wouldn't it be sufficient to use:
> 
>   https://spdx.org/licenses/v3.0/
> 
> or at most:
> 
>   https://spdx.org/licenses/release/v3.0/
> 
> Cheers,
> Trevor
> 
> [1]: https://spdx.org/licenses/archive/archived_ll_v3.0/
> 
> --
> 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

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

Past and current License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

[W. Trevor King]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> An alternative would be to use an ISO 8601 to express time.
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
> 
> Version: 3.0 published on 2017-12-28
> 
> Version: 3.0 of 2017-12-28

+1 to using ISO dates.

It would also be nice to be able to link to [1] in a way that will
survive 3.1 getting cut.

About the URL template itself, I'd rather not repeat “archive”, and
“archive” no longer feels quite right once you have an entry for the
current release.  I also think the /licenses/ prefix already covers
“ll” (which I'm guessing is for “License List”).  Wouldn't it be
sufficient to use:

  https://spdx.org/licenses/v3.0/

or at most:

  https://spdx.org/licenses/release/v3.0/

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://spdx.org/licenses/archive/archived_ll_v3.0/

-- 
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

Re: 3.1 release

[Mark D. Baushke]

Alexios makes a good point.

An alternative would be to use an ISO 8601 to express time.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

Version: 3.0 published on 2017-12-28

Version: 3.0 of 2017-12-28

I will also note that if you do no like the International Standard
Organization's view of time, you could choose a very exposed commercial
package methods of encoding time. For example, SAS. It allows you to
express time in many formats.

http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/lrdict/64316/HTML/default/viewer.htm#a003169814.htm

B8601DA8.  == Basic ISO 8601mmdd20171228
E8601DA10. == Extended ISO 8601 -mm-dd  2017-12-28
DATE9. ==   ddMMM   28DEC2017
DATE11.==   dd-MMM- 28-DEC-2017

However, SAS do not generally encode any date field in "dd month "
format.

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

RE: 3.1 release

[gary]

Thanks Phillippe - 

> So may be one small thing that would go a very long way would be to:
> 
> 1. create a page that has links to the older versions of the LL page 2. link
> this "archives" page from the current LL version 3. link the previous version
> too 4. as a bonus possibly link the preview next when this is published and
> mostly ready before we switch over to final
> 
> These links could be on the same line as the line that says:
> "Version: 3.0 28 December 2017"
> 
> Something like :
> Current Version: 3.0 28 December 2017  - (previous version, versions
> archive, next version preview, )
> 
> What do you think?
[G.O.] Makes sense.  

Jilayne and Paul - let me know if you agree.  I'm going to do some work to 
automate the generation of the website pages and I can work this into the 
process.

Gary


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

Re: 3.1 release

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Gary,

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM,   wrote:
> It turns out we do maintain archived license lists, it just isn't very
> well documented or publicized.
>
> There are also some formatting issues since older versions reference
> some content which either isn't included in the archive or is not
> longer in the same location online.
>
> Archived versions can be found at:
> https://spdx.org/licenses/archive/archived_ll_v[version]/
>
> Example: https://spdx.org/licenses/archive/archived_ll_v1.17/
>
> We also produce a preview website before publication at
> https://spdx.org/licenses/preview  The preview availability is
> typically published to the SPDX legal distribution list.

As usual, you rock!
So may be one small thing that would go a very long way would be to:

1. create a page that has links to the older versions of the LL page
2. link this "archives" page from the current LL version
3. link the previous version too
4. as a bonus possibly link the preview next when this is published
and mostly ready before we switch over to final

These links could be on the same line as the line that says:
"Version: 3.0 28 December 2017"

Something like :
Current Version: 3.0 28 December 2017  - (previous version, versions
archive, next version preview, )

What do you think?

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Past and preview License List releases (was: 3.1 release)

[W. Trevor King]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:14:03PM -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> We are pushing new versions of the license lists but we are NOT
> keeping online the previous versions. They are only in git repos.
> I think it would help a lot adopters to have all the versions (at
> least starting with 2.6 and up) available online on the license list
> web page(s).

An easy way to do this would be to push our website HTML (e.g. [1]) to
the gh-pages branch of license-list-data.  I've mocked that up in
[2,3], and you can see old versions of the list in [4,5,…].

> It could also make sense as a further refinement to publish a
> preview of a new version list for comments/heads up before it
> becomes the latest.

You can do this with the gh-pages approach too [6,7], although someone
(possibly a robot) would need to bump gh-pages after each master
commit (or at least whenever you wanted to refresh the preview).

If this approach seems useful, someone with license-list-data write
access just needs to push my gh-pages branch [8] to the main
repository.

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/blob/v2.6/website/0BSD
[2]: https://wking.github.io/license-list-data/
[3]: 
https://github.com/wking/license-list-data/commit/c112d15c76e8c2f0a5c15eca8719a81a765a631f
[4]: https://wking.github.io/license-list-data/v2.6/website/
[5]: https://wking.github.io/license-list-data/v3.0/website/
[6]: https://wking.github.io/license-list-data/dev/website/
[7]: 
https://github.com/wking/license-list-data/commit/1f7322894a9e3a2a233eca9250549d3cd59f5eeb
[8]: https://github.com/wking/license-list-data/tree/gh-pages

-- 
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

Re: 3.1 release

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:22 PM, J Lovejoy <opensou...@jilayne.com> wrote:
> I’m trying to get things nailed down for Gary to do the 3.1 release by end
> of next week.
> A few outstanding things that could go either way (resolved now via email
> and included / or pushed to 3.2) - can I please get some input on these:

One important thing (to me) that I am not sure I brought up yet:

We are pushing new versions of the license lists but we are NOT
keeping online the previous versions. They are only in git repos.
I think it would help a lot adopters to have all the versions (at
least starting with 2.6 and up) available online on the license list
web page(s).

This way users can point to the proper version of the list and
licenses and update to use new versions of the list at their own pace.
This would alleviate a lot of confusion or frustration that the V3.0
list did generate in the community when the A/L/GPL-X.X  ids became
deprecated.
It could also make sense as a further refinement to publish a preview
of a new version list for comments/heads up before it becomes the
latest.

All these would be to help users avoid surprises and possible confusion.
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: 3.1 release

[W. Trevor King]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:28:57PM -0400, Steve Winslow wrote:
> Apologies for any confusion from submitting as a separate PR, I'm
> not sure how to modify or add commits to the existing PR at #551...

You can stack your commits on top of the original PR's branch and then
set that branch as the base of your pull request [1,2].  In this case
that would mean filing the pull request against the branch in Wayne's
repository.

But for something short and simple like this, filing parallel requests
like you did is probably fine too ;).

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: 
https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request/#changing-the-branch-range-and-destination-repository
[2]: 
https://help.github.com/articles/changing-the-base-branch-of-a-pull-request/

-- 
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

Re: 3.1 release

[Steve Winslow]

I've submitted a new PR (#625,
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/625) to include the test
text, and to fix the filename to mirror the licenseID in the XML file.

Apologies for any confusion from submitting as a separate PR, I'm not sure
how to modify or add commits to the existing PR at #551...

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Steve Winslow <swins...@linuxfoundation.org
> wrote:

> Hi Jilayne, I'm looking at #551 now (OpenJDK exception). It looks like the
> test is failing now because there isn't a test text file present. I'm going
> to see if I can prepare a test text file and add it so that this will pass.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:22 PM, J Lovejoy <opensou...@jilayne.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’m trying to get things nailed down for Gary to do the 3.1 release by
>> end of next week.
>> A few outstanding things that could go either way (resolved now via email
>> and included / or pushed to 3.2) - can I please get some input on these:
>>
>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/551 - OpenJDK exception -
>> need to get this in here, but I just updated the version number as per
>> Wayne’s response and now test failed. Also, I”m not sure that the first and
>> last paragraph are really part of the exception http://openjdk.java.
>> net/legal/assembly-exception.html or should they be optional? Seems like
>> references in actual source files just refer to that page, instead of
>> including the exception text itself?
>>
>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 - new license,
>> discussed on call today and inclination to add, but did not have time to
>> resolve name.
>>
>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/616 - have not discussed
>> but came up on mailing list awhile ago…
>>
>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618 - from mailing list
>> - two issues here: but updating the full names is the non-controversial
>> part we could theoretically do for 3.1 - thoughts?
>>
>>
>> I have also marked a handful of Issues and PRs that seem to have been
>> hanging around for awhile as milestone for 3.2 - let’s try to focus on
>> clearing these on the next call or two.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jilayne
>>
>> SPDX Legal Team co-lead
>> opensou...@jilayne.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Spdx-legal mailing list
>> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Steve Winslow
> Director of Strategic Programs
> The Linux Foundation
> Cell: +1.202.641.3047 <(202)%20641-3047>  Skype: 12026413047
> <(202)%20641-3047>
> swins...@linuxfoundation.org
>



-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Cell: +1.202.641.3047  Skype: 12026413047
swins...@linuxfoundation.org
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: 3.1 release

[Steve Winslow]

Hi Jilayne, I'm looking at #551 now (OpenJDK exception). It looks like the
test is failing now because there isn't a test text file present. I'm going
to see if I can prepare a test text file and add it so that this will pass.

Thanks,
Steve

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:22 PM, J Lovejoy <opensou...@jilayne.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I’m trying to get things nailed down for Gary to do the 3.1 release by end
> of next week.
> A few outstanding things that could go either way (resolved now via email
> and included / or pushed to 3.2) - can I please get some input on these:
>
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/551 - OpenJDK exception -
> need to get this in here, but I just updated the version number as per
> Wayne’s response and now test failed. Also, I”m not sure that the first and
> last paragraph are really part of the exception http://openjdk.java.
> net/legal/assembly-exception.html or should they be optional? Seems like
> references in actual source files just refer to that page, instead of
> including the exception text itself?
>
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 - new license,
> discussed on call today and inclination to add, but did not have time to
> resolve name.
>
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/616 - have not discussed
> but came up on mailing list awhile ago…
>
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618 - from mailing list -
> two issues here: but updating the full names is the non-controversial part
> we could theoretically do for 3.1 - thoughts?
>
>
> I have also marked a handful of Issues and PRs that seem to have been
> hanging around for awhile as milestone for 3.2 - let’s try to focus on
> clearing these on the next call or two.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jilayne
>
> SPDX Legal Team co-lead
> opensou...@jilayne.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>


-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Cell: +1.202.641.3047  Skype: 12026413047
swins...@linuxfoundation.org
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

3.1 release

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

I’m trying to get things nailed down for Gary to do the 3.1 release by end of 
next week.
A few outstanding things that could go either way (resolved now via email and 
included / or pushed to 3.2) - can I please get some input on these:

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/551 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/551> - OpenJDK exception - need 
to get this in here, but I just updated the version number as per Wayne’s 
response and now test failed. Also, I”m not sure that the first and last 
paragraph are really part of the exception 
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/assembly-exception.html 
<http://openjdk.java.net/legal/assembly-exception.html> or should they be 
optional? Seems like references in actual source files just refer to that page, 
instead of including the exception text itself?

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619> - new license, discussed 
on call today and inclination to add, but did not have time to resolve name.

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/616 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/616> - have not discussed but 
came up on mailing list awhile ago… 

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618 
<https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618> - from mailing list - two 
issues here: but updating the full names is the non-controversial part we could 
theoretically do for 3.1 - thoughts?


I have also marked a handful of Issues and PRs that seem to have been hanging 
around for awhile as milestone for 3.2 - let’s try to focus on clearing these 
on the next call or two.


Thanks,
Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com


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