Date
1 - 11 of 11
3.1 release
|
+1 to ISO8601
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Mark D. Baushke Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:10 AM To: Zavras, Alexios <alexios.zavras@...> Cc: 'SPDX-legal' <spdx-legal@...> Subject: Re: 3.1 release 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 8601 yyyymmdd 20171228 E8601DA10. == Extended ISO 8601 yyyy-mm-dd 2017-12-28 DATE9. == ddMMMyyyy 28DEC2017 DATE11. == dd-MMM-yyyy 28-DEC-2017 However, SAS do not generally encode any date field in "dd month yyyy" format. -- Mark _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal |
|
|
|
Mark D. Baushke <mdb@...>
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 8601 yyyymmdd 20171228 E8601DA10. == Extended ISO 8601 yyyy-mm-dd 2017-12-28 DATE9. == ddMMMyyyy 28DEC2017 DATE11. == dd-MMM-yyyy 28-DEC-2017 However, SAS do not generally encode any date field in "dd month yyyy" format. -- Mark |
|
|
|
Alexios Zavras
May I humbly suggest to add something to the line:
"Version: 3.0 28 December 2017"so that it reads like "Version: 3.0 - 28 December 2017" or "Version: 3.0 published 28 December 2017" or something because my eyes automatically read version 3.0.28 ? -- zvr - -----Original Message----- From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of gary@... Sent: Saturday, 24 March, 2018 00:44 To: 'Philippe Ombredanne' <pombredanne@...> Cc: 'SPDX-legal' <spdx-legal@...> Subject: RE: 3.1 release Thanks Phillippe - So may be one small thing that would go a very long way would be to:[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@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal Intel Deutschland GmbH Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office: Munich Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928 |
|
|
|
Gary O'Neall
Thanks Phillippe -
So may be one small thing that would go a very long way would be to:[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 |
|
|
|
Philippe Ombredanne
Gary,
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM, <gary@...> wrote: It turns out we do maintain archived license lists, it just isn't veryAs 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 |
|
|
|
Gary O'Neall
It turns out we do maintain archived license lists, it just isn't very well documented or publicized.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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. Gary -----Original Message----- |
|
|
|
Philippe Ombredanne
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:22 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:
I’m trying to get things nailed down for Gary to do the 3.1 release by endOne 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 |
|
|
|
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'mYou 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 |
|
|
|
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 <swinslow@...> wrote:
--
Steve Winslow Director of Strategic Programs The Linux Foundation Cell: +1.202.641.3047 Skype: 12026413047 |
|
|
|
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, SteveOn Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:22 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:
--
Steve Winslow Director of Strategic Programs The Linux Foundation Cell: +1.202.641.3047 Skype: 12026413047 |
|
|
|
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 - 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 |
|
|