|
Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal
James Bottomley
On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 20:55 -0700, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
Others have more religious affinity for the Linux desktop.Wow that's a blast from the early part of this millenium. Since Linux now runs over 80% of the world's computing resources, I thought we'd got over stigmatizing people who actually run it on their desktops. It's not for want of others trying: my workplace keeps sending me windows laptops, but they aren't really useful for my daily activities and it turns out that if you don't switch them on very often, they simply stop working and eventually the capital expense isn't worth it. But I haven't seen any libre option that stacks up to Zoom'sWell, I'm glad you asked ... so far the most promising fully open trial is this one: https://bigbluebutton.org/ But the trials are still ongoing so that's by no means the final answer. It's actually somewhat obvious: bigbluebutton was developed for teaching remotely in under resourced schools, so of course they brought it up on a free (as in beer) OS because everything else was cost prohibitive. No one's heard of it because their advertising budget matches the available resources ... James |
|
|
|
Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal
Alexios Zavras
The good folks at FSFE maintain a wiki page with Free Software alternatives:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/FreeSoftware4RemoteWorking I should point out that in the SPDX calls we don't actually use video -- it's audio and screen sharing. -- zvr -----Original Message-----
From: Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> On Behalf Of James Bottomley Sent: Tuesday, 14 April, 2020 06:35 To: Kyle Mitchell <kyle@...> Cc: atwoodm@...; Kate Stewart <kstewart@...>; Spdx-legal@...; spdx@... Subject: Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 20:55 -0700, Kyle Mitchell wrote: Others have more religious affinity for the Linux desktop.Wow that's a blast from the early part of this millenium. Since Linux now runs over 80% of the world's computing resources, I thought we'd got over stigmatizing people who actually run it on their desktops. It's not for want of others trying: my workplace keeps sending me windows laptops, but they aren't really useful for my daily activities and it turns out that if you don't switch them on very often, they simply stop working and eventually the capital expense isn't worth it. But I haven't seen any libre option that stacks up to Zoom'sWell, I'm glad you asked ... so far the most promising fully open trial is this one: https://bigbluebutton.org/ But the trials are still ongoing so that's by no means the final answer. It's actually somewhat obvious: bigbluebutton was developed for teaching remotely in under resourced schools, so of course they brought it up on a free (as in beer) OS because everything else was cost prohibitive. No one's heard of it because their advertising budget matches the available resources ... James 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, Gary Kershaw Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office: Munich Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928 |
|
|
|
Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal
James Bottomley
On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 20:31 +0000, Mark Atwood via lists.spdx.org
wrote: Chime has clients for Win, and for Mac, it runs in Browser on FirefoxSo no app for Linux then? As you can appreciate, a lot of us have now been evaluating a whole range of video conference technologies and one of the empirical rules I've been seeing is that solutions that don't provide a Linux client usually can't provide app equivalent functionality on the web either ... and actually there are several solutions (cough, bluejeans, cough) that allegedly provide a linux app but not with the full range of capability and have similar problems on the web. One of the things I will give zoom in the pantheon of proprietary crap for meetings is that they have a full range of supported linux clients, for almost every distribution you can think of, with functionality equivalent to windows and mac. James |
|
|
|
Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal
Jumping in randomly: would be super interested in exploring this for OpenChain if that’s on the table. Shane On Apr 14, 2020, at 5:31, Mark Atwood via lists.spdx.org <atwoodm=amazon.com@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal
Kyle Mitchell
I've used the Linux Zoom client nearly every day for a few
weeks now, and less often for several months before that. It's been seamless for all the core talk-and-watch functionality. It does lag a bit behind on lesser features. For example, some of the call-recording options on Windows and Mac still haven't made it over to Linux. So it goes. I don't usually attend SPDX calls, so this is just FYI. If I do end up joining in again, I can always use a phone. Which had sprouted six or seven different apps for VoIP, last I checked. Others have more religious affinity for the Linux desktop. But I haven't seen any libre option that stacks up to Zoom's reliability. Other closed competitors---Hangouts especially---never met that bar, either. -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 |
|
|
|
Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal
One of the benefits of using Zoom is its native Linux client. Does Chime offer a Linux client?
If not, I think it is kinda weird (given the year of the Linux desktop) to use something that isn't available on Linux.
Cheers,
Jeremiah
On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 15:50 -0500, Kate Stewart wrote:
This e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended only for the recipient(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive them. They may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read this email or its attachment(s). Furthermore, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment(s) or copies thereof from your system. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Re: Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal
Kate Stewart
Hi Mark, Thanks for the generous offer. :-) We're not paying for zoom, however I'm definitely up for doing an experiment during our spdx-tech meeting tomorrow, and if it works for the regular attendees, changing to a system with better security. Can you send me the details for the account to use, and we'll do an experiment during the tech call, and feedback to the wider group. Thanks again! Kate On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 3:31 PM Atwood, Mark <atwoodm@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Chime instead of Zoom, a modest proposal
Hi Kate and other SPDX folk,
We have been using Zoom to provide teleconference for SPDX meetings. In light of recent events, Zoom has gotten very popular, and also been failing many security audits, and so many companies and governments have started banning its use.
Amazon has a service very similar to Zoom, called Amazon Chime. Amazon Chime has 1) it's got much better security, 2) it doesn't give your personal, login, and meeting info to the adtech tracking industry, 3) it is gratis with all professional features
to the end of June, and 4) as an Amazonian and this being part of my work, I can provide gratis usage to the SPDX group even after the end of June.
Chime has clients for Win, and for Mac, it runs in Browser on Firefox and on Chrome on all OSes, it has clients for mobile OSes, and also has local and tollfree telephone dialin in most countries.
So, what do you think? Switch to Chime? It's especially a win if we are paying for Zoom.
..m
-- Mark Atwood <atwoodm@...> Principal, Open Source, Amazon |
|
|
|
April General SPDX Meeting Minutes
Phil Odence
A great meeting with great attendance. Please volunteer or suggest a guest speaker for next time. Anything SPDX related is fair game.
https://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2020-04-02
General Meeting/Minutes/2020-04-02< General Meeting | Minutes · Attendance: 19 · Lead by Phil Odence · Minutes of April meeting Contents[hide] · 1 Guest Speaker- Allan Friedman, NTIA · 4 Outreach Team Report - Jack Guest Speaker- Allan Friedman, NTIA[edit]· NTIA’s Multistakeholder SBOM Process · Concerns about software supply chain risks have garnered more attention and energy in the OSS community, industry, and governments around the world. One natural starting point is a greater expectation of transparency of software components and dependencies. Any solution must scale up and down the software supply chain, and across the incredibly diverse software ecosystem, from modern CI/CD application development to critical infrastructure and embedded systems. Over the past two years, NTIA has helped a diverse set of stakeholders find a common vision for a "software bill of materials" (SBOM) that has the potential to scale as needed, and serve as a foundation for even more innovation around software supply chain security and quality. The SPDX community has played a key role in this discussion, and emerged as a key standard. This presentation will give an overview of the policy landscape, the progress made, and the work yet to be done around SBOM. · Allan’s slides https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KOsm6grnSZ5FsSnzTI9ybYT9m84F8Zfe Tech Team Report - Kate[edit]· Spec · Wrapping up 2.2 spec · Known unknowns made it in · 3.0 Visions · William Bartholomew’s talk about profiles was great (and recorded) · Tools · Gary’s been working on 2.2 tooling · Requiring a complete rewrite to the java tools · Not API compatible · Google SoC · 15 different submissions · Google is looking for additional mentors on each project · So, we need more mentors; contact Gary Legal Team Report - Steve[edit]· Finalized updates to license inclusion principles · Mostly clarifications · But also to broaden a bit for non-OSS source available licenses · https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md · 3.9 list release has been pushed out a bit · Were waiting for above · https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%223.9+release%22 · In anticipation of 3.0 working on a licensing profile · With Tech Team, updating back end of SPDX website to manage move from Drupal to Wordpress · Maintaining license URLs · Static pages moving do a different domain.
Outreach Team Report - Jack[edit]· Will be looking for help to update content for Website as per above · Documenting comprehensive list of SPDX-related tooling Cross Functional -[edit]· None Attendees[edit]· Phil Odence, Black Duck/Synopsys · Alan Friedman, NTIA · Rose Judge, VMware · Steve Winslow, LF · Kate Stewart, Linux Foundation · Alexios Zavras, Intel · Jack Manbeck, TI · Jim Hutchison, Qualcomm · William Bartholomew, GitHub · Dave McLoughlin, Flexera · Michael Herzog- nexB · Alex Rybak, Flexera · Gary O’Neall, SourceAuditor · Paul Madick · Brad Goldring, GTC Law · David Wheeler, Linux Foundation · Mike Dolan, Linux Foundation · Bob Campbell, DXC · Mark Atwood, Amazon
|
|
|
|
Thursday's SPDX General Meeting Reminder - Including Special Guest Star
Phil Odence
We’ll be pleased to welcome “professor-turned-technocrat” Allan Friedman, the Director of Cybersecurity at NTIA. He is at the center of NTIA’s effort to standard a software BOM and an SPDX fan. This is a great opportunity to understand this important work and where we fit. (Details on Allan and his talk below the agenda.)
GENERAL MEETING
Meeting Time: Thurs, April 2, 8am PT / 10 am CT / 11am ET / 15:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html
New dial in number: 415-881-1586 No PIN needed
The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at:
Administrative Agenda Attendance Minutes Approval:
Guest Presentation – Allan Friedman
Technical Team Report – Kate/Gary
Legal Team Report – Jilayne/Paul/Steve
Outreach Team Report – Jack
Any Cross Functional Issues –All
Concerns about software supply chain risks have garnered more attention and energy in the OSS community, industry, and governments around the world. One natural starting point is a greater expectation of transparency of software components and dependencies. Any solution must scale up and down the software supply chain, and across the incredibly diverse software ecosystem, from modern CI/CD application development to critical infrastructure and embedded systems. Over the past two years, NTIA has helped a diverse set of stakeholders find a common vision for a "software bill of materials" (SBOM) that has the potential to scale as needed, and serve as a foundation for even more innovation around software supply chain security and quality. The SPDX community has played a key role in this discussion, and emerged as a key standard. This presentation will give an overview of the policy landscape, the progress made, and the work yet to be done around SBOM.
Allan Friedman is Director of Cybersecurity at National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the US Department of Commerce. He coordinates NTIA's multistakeholder processes on cybersecurity, focusing on addressing vulnerabilities in IoT and across the software world. Prior to joining the Federal Government, Friedman spent over 15 years as a noted InfoSec and tech policy scholar at Harvard's Computer Science Department, the Brookings Institution and George Washington University's Engineering School. He is the co-author of the popular text 'Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know,' has a degree in computer science from Swarthmore College and a PhD in public policy from Harvard University, and is quite friendly for a failed professor-turned-technocrat.
|
|
|
|
SPDX License List inclusion principles and 3.9 release
Steve Winslow
Hello all, Following from Jilayne's email earlier this month, the legal team has now finalized and posted the update to the license inclusion principles for the SPDX License List. The updated principles can be found at: As a result of the update, we will be shifting the date for the next release of the License List (version 3.9) from the end of March to the end of April. This will provide a window for recent submissions -- as well as the backlog of older submissions that relate to this update -- to be considered for inclusion under the new guidelines for the next release. I would encourage folks to review the open issues that are listed for consideration in 3.9, and to weigh in with comments on whether they should be added under the updated guidelines. You can see the issues tagged for 3.9 at: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%223.9+release%22 Even if you aren't familiar enough with the License List's XML format to create XML files for actually adding licenses, input is welcome on the baseline question of whether or not the submitted licenses are appropriate to add to the list. Hope everyone is staying safe and healthy. Best, Steve |
|
|
|
SPDX legal team call tomorrow
J Lovejoy
Hi all,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The SPDX legal team has its regular bi-weekly call tomorrow, Thursday at noon, Eastern Daylight Savings time (note: The US moved our clocks forward, but I believe the UK and Europe has yet to do that, so time diff may still be an hour different from usual). As noted in the email below - we will be finalizing the new license inclusion guidelines! https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/990 Dial-in info below, in case you don’t have the invite on your calendar. Thanks, Jilayne SPDX legal team co-lead Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/611416785 Meeting ID: 611 416 785 One tap mobile: +16465588656,,611416785# US (New York) +16699006833,,611416785# US (San Jose) Dial by your location: +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose 877 369 0926 US Toll-free 855 880 1246 US Toll-free +1 647 558 0588 Canada 855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free Meeting ID: 611 416 785 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aceZFvRyln On Mar 12, 2020, at 1:59 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Re: SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines
J Lovejoy
Hi Kyle,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for having a look. As to your question: we had a discussion on one of the many calls we discussed this topic and ran the hypothetical of what if there were no “rules” or the rules were very relaxed. One extreme might look like this: anyone can add a license, any time and the SPDX License List becomes bloated and so long that nothing is reliable any more - we’d end up with duplicate licenses (b/c no one was minding the Matching Guidelines), duplicate ids (the horror!) etc. It would certainly lose it’s value. If there is something we can amend on the current proposal, then there has been plenty of opportunity to say so, and there is still (a little) time. The proposed revision substantially relaxes the previous guidelines - as you well know. there are a number of licenses in the queue that we’ve put on hold knowing that if we changed the guidelines, they would be easy submissions. We also made some obvious things explicit like not adding a license that would match an existing license - we probably all assumed that one, but it wasn’t actually written down! I’m still unclear as to what the actual issue and suggestion is out of this thread. Thanks, Jilayne On Mar 13, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Re: SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines
Kyle Mitchell
All,
I am both impressed by the work Jilayne and others have put into the guidelines, and in strong sympathy with the general thrust Philippe reports from the conference. I didn't go to FOSDEM, but judging from Philippe's notes, I wouldn't have had much else to add. I keep returning to the _why_ behind rules and proposed rules. Is the overbearing issue, from the SPDX-side point of view, still too many license submissions, too fast to handle? -- Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933 |
|
|
|
Re: Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed?
#poll
> +1 from me on everything David said (quoted below for convenience)
+1 |
|
|
|
Re: Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed?
#poll
+1 from me on everything David said (quoted below for convenience)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
cheers, Matija On četrtek, 12. marec 2020 22:19:38 CET, David A. Wheeler wrote:
I would prefer another option NOT in the poll (and thus have not voted): Treat it as just another license statement. There are multiple ways this kind of “uncopyrightable” assertion is made, and I think that specific form should be captured as a license statement. --
gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 www: https://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje@... sip: matija_suklje@... |
|
|
|
Re: SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines
Philippe Ombredanne
Hi Jilayne:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:59 PM J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote: I’m sending this to both the legal and general mailing lists to ensureOn January 31st a compliance tooling meeting and hackathon took place in Brussels before FOSDEM [1]. One of the session topics was SPDX. Everyone there agreed that SPDX license inclusion criteria should be relaxed. Adding more restrictions and filters is IMHO counterproductive in several ways: - it requires more work to apply these restrictions and filters - more work means fewer licenses are added - as a shared "vocabulary" the utility function of the license list is directly related to the number of "words" we can use. Restricting the number of words in the license vocabulary only means that these words cannot be used in shared conversation about licenses. But these licenses still exist, so the restrictions impact mostly the usefulness and expressiveness of SPDX, especially in the more common cases where license expressions are used without an SPDX document. This could increasingly make the SPDX License list irrelevant if it is missing important license vocabulary. The existing and proposed license inclusion criteria seem counterproductive and likely to subtract value from SPDX. The community does not need SPDX to police or enforce OSS license "purity" via the license list. Instead there should be fewer barriers to adding new licenses to the list in order to optimize the utility of the SPDX license list and the number of common licenses SPDX expressions can deal with. Since SPDX does not interpret license conditions, the inclusion guidelines should be loosened to include commonly-used and public licenses without an OSS litmus test (e.g. free proprietary licenses). This will become more important for SPDX as more organizations become more focused on compliance and are looking for a way to account for all licenses detected from scans or other analysis. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UphruKKAlsoUEidPCwTF2LCcHFnQkvQCQ9luTXfDupw/edit# -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne |
|
|
|
Re: Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed?
#poll
> A new poll has been created… I would prefer another option NOT in the poll (and thus have not voted): Treat it as just another license statement. There are multiple ways this kind of “uncopyrightable” assertion is made, and I think that specific form should be captured as a license statement.
New entries should be created for at least the “CC Public Domain Mark” and the situation where someone in the US government does it as part of official duties & doesn’t claim a copyright. There’s a discussion going on here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/988
Treating it like “everything else” means there are no special cases for SPDX, *and* you get finer-grained information.
For those who object & say that “there is no license”, well, “license” is just synonym for “permission”, and in this case the permission is granted by the way the legal systems work. So it’s a permission granted by the underlying mechanisms of law J. I think the *users* of SPDX will appreciate the simplicity of *not* needing another special case.
From: spdx@... <spdx@...>
On Behalf Of michael.kaelbling@...
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 5:51 AM To: spdx@... Subject: [spdx] Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed? #poll
The U.S. Copyright Office considers some works uncopyrightable "because they contain an
insufficient amount of authorship", e.g. "words and short phrases ... titles ... names", "mere listing of ... contents, or a simple set of directions...", and
blank forms (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf).
SPDX-License-Identifer: NOASSERTION and SPDX-CopyrightText: NOASSERTION is similarly inappropriate. 1. Yes - an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License is needed |
|
|
|
SPDX License List license inclusion guidelines
J Lovejoy
Hi all,
I’m sending this to both the legal and general mailing lists to ensure greatest visibility. The legal team has come up with a final draft of the license inclusion guidelines based on various conversations and feedback over the past 8 months of intermittent discussion. The pull request representing this draft is located here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/990 We are looking to provide another two weeks for review and comment and then finalize and publish this. Please do comment either on the PR, the issue below or the legal team mailing list. (including +1 if you think it’s all good!) The issue where some of the discussion has taken place is here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/925 Thanks! Jilayne SPDX legal team co-lead |
|
|
|
SPDX License List - license inclusion guidelines
J Lovejoy
Hi all,
As has been mentioned on recent general calls, the legal team has been discussing a revision of the license inclusion guidelines off and on over the past year. We have a draft iteration that incorporates many of the discussed changes in the Github repo here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md The existing guidelines are here: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview We will be discussing this on tomorrow’s legal call and hoping to finalize the revision of the inclusion guidelines in the next few weeks. If you are interested in this topic, I’d encourage you to join the call tomorrow or otherwise comment in Github or on the mailing list. Thanks, Jilayne SPDX legal team co-lead |
|
|