Re: NONE & NOASSERTION discussion


J Lovejoy
 

Hi All,

Thanks for the great joint call today.  As discussed, I’m attaching the same table as distributed yesterday, which will show any changes discussed on the call, some comments as to what was resolved, and a couple highlighted issues that tie to larger issues in the spec.

As to the wording we discussed - please have a look to confirm.  If you have any further comments, please make them via email by Friday, June 26th.  After that, Kate and I will start incorporating into the next version of the spec.

Thanks!
Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...


On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:53 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

Hello SPDX Tech and Legal teams,

Please find attached some documentation for our call on Tuesday regarding fields in the SPDX specification, v2.0 that use either NONE, NOASSERTION or both. 

The goal of this meeting is to review such fields and ensure that the definitions for NONE and NOASSERTION are consistent throughout, and if there is any question as to whether either of these options should be used at all by a particular field, then discuss that.

There are 2 .pdfs attached:
 1) one is a table that includes a quick view of all the fields that use either NONE or NOASSERTION.  For each field there is two lines: a yellow line with the text currently found in the spec; and a blue line with proposed text.  Some comments are also included.  I recommend looking at this first.
2) the other is the full spec with track changes and comments showing the proposed changes, if you need context, etc.

A couple things that were kept in mind for the wording of the proposed changes:
- make definitions of NONE and NOASSERTION consistent across all fields, including removing specific field references to align definitions to be consistent, e.g., "Use NOASSERTION if the SPDX file creator has made no attempt to determine this field” instead of “Use NOASSERTION if the SPDX file creator has made no attempt to determine the download location"
- as much as possible, remove “should” and use more direct language, e.g. “Use NONE if …” instead of “NONE should be used if…”


Please review the attached and the above goal in advance of the meeting!!  If you get email in a daily digest and do not receive the attachments, let me know and I can send them directly.


Thanks,
Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...

<SPDX-2.0-201506155-NONE-NOASSERTION-table_comparison.pdf>
<SPDX-2.0-JLedits_20150615.pdf>

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

Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.