good thoughts, Scott! Perhaps we don't need to prioritized the rationales, as there are several very strong ones, but rather, start with focusing on the easy applicability of the short identifiers to this purpose (i.e. tagging). Then discuss why (rationale) tagging is helpful. I like the bulleted list format Jack came up with, but it might be better to have a couple sentences for each bullet fleshing out those advantages.
I also meant to add something about how this is not a "replacement" to compliance, but that the main goal is to make it easier to identify the license of a particular file (and by easier, that would mean more automatable) which, in turn, makes compliance easier. After all, you can only begin compliance once you know what you have (via an SPDX document in this case) and, in my experience, far too much time is spent trying to figure out the former than should be. David's point about the short identifiers not being completely immutable is a good one as well. As much as we aim to make them so, extreme statements like that are usually an invite for contradiction later :) Jilayne Lovejoy SPDX Legal Team lead lovejoyl...@gmail.com On Oct 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, "Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office)" <scott.lam...@hp.com> wrote: > Hi Jilayne, > > Thanks for updating this page. In particular for adding the rationale for > why tagging is important in the Introduction section. For me, the main > impetus of adding the license tag is to automate the production of accurate > SPDX data. To the extent that licensing headers are already included in the > file I’m not a fan of replacing that with the tag – rather, I think our (the > SPDX workgroup that is) recommendation or best practice should be that the > tag should supplement the other licensing information. But, in the end, it > is the ultimate choice of the copyright holder of the software because they > will be the party implementing this should they choose to adopt. > > Coming back to a higher level... What is the purpose of this page? We > need to be very clear on this. In my mind it is to propose a best practice > or a coding standard. Assuming folks agree with that, then why are we > asking for people to propose new tags at the bottom of the page – that seems > to defeat the purpose. > > -Scott > > > > > From: spdx-biz-boun...@lists.spdx.org > [mailto:spdx-biz-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:09 AM > To: SPDX-legal; SPDX-biz; spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org > Subject: meta-tag page > > I just updated the meta-tag proposal page on the Wiki in the introduction > section. We had discussed on the general meeting this morning, that this was > needed. Have a look and see what you think. > > http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/SPDX_Meta_Tags > > > Jilayne Lovejoy > SPDX Legal Team lead > lovejoyl...@gmail.com > > >
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
