Re: Spec comments and suggestions

Gary O'Neall

Good point on the copyright holder/copyright information. We could have all
of the copyrights combined in one field - e.g. if a file or package has 3
copyrights A, B, and C - we could have a single copyright field of "A, B,
and C". This, however, would make it difficult to parse and potentially
loose information. I would be in favor or changing the cardinality to 1 or

On the Download URL - agree with the comment. I would also add that the
recently discussed optional field of a DOAP document could provide quite a
bit of additional information on the package. The DOAP document includes
optional fields for the following:
Download-page - Mirror of software download web page.
Download-mirror - Mirror of the Web page from which the project software
can be downloaded.
Homepage - URL of a project's homepage, associated with exactly one
Old-homepage - URL of a project's past homepage, associated with exactly
one project.
Repository - Source code repository.
Wiki - URL of Wiki for collaborative discussion of project.


-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:31 AM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Spec comments and suggestions

Hello All,

I am getting up to speed, have taken a close look at the current spec,
and have some comments noted below.

3.4 Download URL
COMMENT: We may want to have some guideline as to which page is to be
specified for this field, i.e. the home page or the download page where
there is both or the website has many pages.

3.5 Additional Source Information
COMMENT: We may want to add a guideline for this field to encourage
complete information. In my experience, brief notes written by someone
else (let alone myself sometimes) are sometimes incomprehensible later.
While this is hard to control, requesting that people use complete
sentences (with a proper subject) and minimize the use of pronouns might
help ensure this information is useful and clear to the next person.
Perhaps simply rewriting the example as suggested below may meet this
3.5.7 Example:
SourceInfo: The glibc-2.11.1 used here was obtained
from git://

3.6 Declared License(s) for a Package
3.6.7 Example: DeclaredLicense/DisjunctiveLicense: ________

- Add example of how this will look. This may have already been

3.8 Declared Copyright Holder of Package
3.8.3 Cardinality: Mandatory, single instance
- There is often more than one author or copyright holder, so this needs
to accommodate multiple instances.

5.4 Copyright Information Detected
5.4.3 Cardinality: Mandatory, single instance
- There is often more than one author or copyright holder, so this needs
to accommodate multiple instances.

In several places in the spec the idea of identifying a license as
either "NotSpecified" or "UnKnown" is mentioned. The current
definitions of these terms in the license list are a bit unclear to me
and could easily overlap. I would suggest revising them as such:
NoLicense (instead of NotSpecified) = no license was found in the file
or elsewhere whatsoever
UnKnown = some license info was found, but it is unclear what license
applies, if the license found applies, etc.
- In both cases, it would be helpful to have a comment field to
accompany these designations for the purpose of explaining why this
conclusion was reached


Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free

OpenLogic, Inc.
Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Spdx mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.