Jack, First, thanks for pulling together this wiki page! You deserve most of the credit for getting this good discussion going.
I actually like the fact that we're having this (and other) discussion(s) "on list" because we're getting good inputs from folks that normally don't (and perhaps can't) join our weekly/bi-weekly calls (e.g. David, Bradley, Daniel, and hopefully more to come) And, I wouldn't apologize for it being rough either as this is the point of our wiki - it's a place for work in progress. Once we get this into a more refined state and have a general consensus in the SPDX working group then I would like to see us start to socialize it more broadly and perhaps put something a bit more formal (e.g. SPDX best practice or coding standard) on our parent (spdx.org) site. -Scott From: Manbeck, Jack [mailto:j-manbe...@ti.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:14 PM To: Jilayne Lovejoy; Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) Cc: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-biz; SPDX-legal Subject: RE: meta-tag page 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. The page was very draft and I wasn't expecting it to go out to the list yet (which is why it was hidden on the wiki :)). That said, no big deal. I was a little confused in drafting it, since I threw it together right after LinuxCon. I thought should this be just about this one field or should we wrap this up and say right now it's just one field but could be more in the future? Unfortunately the intro makes it appear to be about one field but the body makes it appear to be potentially more. Hence, very draft. As to the propose a tag. I was just thinking that we had not covered everything (thinking of what windriver had done as an example) that we could do with tags , and who knows what the future might bring, so leave the door open so someone can say hey this tag would be useful so here was the way to propose a new one or even a change to the current one if for some reason we needed it. All standards or even best practices have a way to make changes and vet new contributions. Jack From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org> [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:26 PM To: Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) Cc: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org>; SPDX-biz; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: meta-tag page 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<mailto:lovejoyl...@gmail.com> On Oct 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, "Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office)" <scott.lam...@hp.com<mailto: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> [mailto:spdx-biz-boun...@lists.spdx.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lovejoyl...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
