Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

J Lovejoy

On Dec 11, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Sandler <karen@...> wrote:

On 2018-12-11 12:19, J Lovejoy wrote:

Am I missing something here on the urgency aspect or did I sort of
create the urgency by tagging it for the 3.4 release?
I proposed this because there was a strong consensus to add the KES to the exceptions list during an open discussion by the full attendance to the LLW meeting in April in Barcelona. I took the action item publicly there on the spot, noting that you were sorely missed from that event. That meeting was held under CHR and was invitation only, so it was absolutely necessary to have had the opportunity to discuss on this list and on the call and the strong consensus at LLW is just one additional data point.

Before all that, Philippe Ombredanne had already proposed KES for the list in November 2017, so it's well over a year in consideration. I think the urgency is just frustration that the discussion has been going on for so long over such an important exception. It looked to me after this year of discussion, that nearly everyone agreed it was right to add the KES to the list.
To be fair to the SPDX community, this hasn’t been discussed here until recently, so I don’t think it’s fair to say the discussion has been going on for so long or that it’s been a year in consideration. I already took some responsibility for the backlog of this (and many other issues), I don’t think I need to keep apologizing for that. It is what it is and this is not the only thing that’s on the agenda for the SPDX License List.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.