Date   

Re: Mailing list archive

Philip Odence
 

Peter,
I'm responsible for the hierarchy, so I'll weigh in. I'd rather change the name to "Getting Started" or something like that (if it's the "Guidelines" that bothers you) rather than moving it. I understand it takes an extra click, but the page contains information that one no longer needs once signed up and familiar, so why make everyone keep looking at it?
I'm not hard over on this, but I do think it's better where it is.
Phil



L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502

On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

Does anyone object to moving the content of
<http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/participation-guidelines> to the main
participation page, <http://www.spdx.org/node/2240>?  A page named
"guidelines" seems more like a code of conduct than a page containing
the details of how one would go about participating.  And the extra
click seem unnecessary.

Peter

On 9/29/10 2:29 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
On 9/29/10 2:16 PM, Armijn Hemel wrote:

https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/

Sweet, thanks. I added a link to the participation guidelines page in
the wiki. Hopefully one more link will make google pick it up.

Peter
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Re: Mailing list archive

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

Does anyone object to moving the content of <http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/participation-guidelines> to the main participation page, <http://www.spdx.org/node/2240>? A page named "guidelines" seems more like a code of conduct than a page containing the details of how one would go about participating. And the extra click seem unnecessary.

Peter

On 9/29/10 2:29 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
On 9/29/10 2:16 PM, Armijn Hemel wrote:

https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/
Sweet, thanks. I added a link to the participation guidelines page in
the wiki. Hopefully one more link will make google pick it up.

Peter


Re: Some SPDX 1.0 beta examples

dmg
 

This is good. It can start some discussion on the standard.

First, one question:

I scanned the file for zlib and I found some issues with it, but I
think are worth discussing:

1. Some files do not contain a license, yet they are marked as one:

dmg@i:/tmp/zlib-1.2.5$ more contrib/minizip/zip.c
/* zip.c -- IO on .zip files using zlib
Version 1.1, February 14h, 2010
part of the MiniZip project - (
http://www.winimage.com/zLibDll/minizip.html )

Copyright (C) 1998-2010 Gilles Vollant (minizip) (
http://www.winimage.com/zLibDll/minizip.html )

Modifications for Zip64 support
Copyright (C) 2009-2010 Mathias Svensson ( http://result42.com )

For more info read MiniZip_info.txt

Changes
Oct-2009 - Mathias Svensson - Remove old C style function prototypes
Oct-2009 - Mathias Svensson - Added Zip64 Support when creating new
file archives
Oct-2009 - Mathias Svensson - Did some code cleanup and refactoring
to get better overview of some functions.
Oct-2009 - Mathias Svensson - Added zipRemoveExtraInfoBlock to
strip extra field data from its ZIP64 data
It is used when recreting zip archive
with RAW when deleting items from a zip.
ZIP64 data is automaticly added to
items that needs it, and existing ZIP64 data need to be removed.
Oct-2009 - Mathias Svensson - Added support for BZIP2 as
compression mode (bzip2 lib is required)
Jan-2010 - back to unzip and minizip 1.0 name scheme, with
compatibility layer

*/


------------
2. Some files refer to zlib.h as the file with a license. Now, if the
SHA1 of the file does not change, I would presume (as a user) that I
don't need to scan it again, which is good. But what if zlib.h
changes? Would it be useful in the SPDX to
use a "reference" field to denote such a thing?

---------
3. Is it the same to include a license than to refer to a license?

---
4. In some files the zlib iicense varies slightly:


This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the author be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.

and in others

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.

--dmg


On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Philip Odence
<podence@blackducksoftware.com> wrote:
I moved it to
Home » Wiki » Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) » Spec
Development » Sandbox For Sharing Examples, Ideas, Etc.
Not sure if it way my knowledge or permissions or both, but anyway, it's
there.
Good stuff, Peter.



On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

Hi all,

I have posted some examples, along with some notes about them at
<http://spdx.org/wiki/openlogic-spdx-10-beta-examples>.  The examples
are intended to conform to the 1.0 beta version of the spec except that
we used sha-256 checksums -- rather than sha-1 -- to identify the files.

I was not able to figure out how to add that page to the examples
sandbox.  (Perhaps i do not permission to do that? )   Would someone
with more knowledge of (or permissions with) the wiki do that for me?

Comments and feedback are welcome.

Peter Williams
<http://openlogic.com>
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@fossbazaar.org
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@fossbazaar.org
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx



--
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org


Re: Mailing list archive

Armijn Hemel <armijn@...>
 

On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 16:24 -0400, Philip Odence wrote:
Now that you have appeared in the NY Times with a Boston Red Sox hat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/26ping.html?src=busln, I
feel I must respond quickly.
Actually I was replying to Peter's question. I guess that your mail
client might not have shown that it was a reply.

But, to actually make it a question: is there an archive available of
the period before August 10?

armijn

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
armijn@gpl-violations.org || http://www.gpl-violations.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: Mailing list archive

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

On 9/29/10 2:16 PM, Armijn Hemel wrote:

https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/
Sweet, thanks. I added a link to the participation guidelines page in the wiki. Hopefully one more link will make google pick it up.

Peter


Re: Mailing list archive

Philip Odence
 

Armijn,

Now that you have appeared in the NY Times with a Boston Red Sox hat http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/26ping.html?src=busln, I feel I must respond quickly.

There are a number of places in SPDX.org that provide links to the mail list sign up, for example:

Click on the mail list sign up link. Then click on the first link that appears on the mail list page https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
and you will be taken to the archive.

Phil

L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502

On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Armijn Hemel wrote:

On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 14:04 -0600, Peter Williams wrote:
Is the spdx mailing list archived anywhere?  I was looking to read up
on
the past debate around a particular part of the spec and I was unable
to
locate an archive of the mailing list.

https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/

armijn

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       armijn@... || http://www.gpl-violations.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Re: Mailing list archive

Armijn Hemel <armijn@...>
 

On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 14:04 -0600, Peter Williams wrote:
Is the spdx mailing list archived anywhere? I was looking to read up
on
the past debate around a particular part of the spec and I was unable
to
locate an archive of the mailing list.
https://fossbazaar.org/pipermail/spdx/

armijn

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
armijn@gpl-violations.org || http://www.gpl-violations.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mailing list archive

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

Is the spdx mailing list archived anywhere? I was looking to read up on the past debate around a particular part of the spec and I was unable to locate an archive of the mailing list.

It is crucial that the forum in which so many of the decisions regarding SPDX are made be archived and made available on the web. The lack of an archive on the web make our work quite opaque to anyone who is not currently subscribed. It also hides this effort from people who might be interested because none of it shows up in search engines.

It is possible to turn on an archiving feature in our list server?

Peter Williams
<http://openlogic.com>


Re: Some SPDX 1.0 beta examples

Philip Odence
 

I moved it to 

Not sure if it way my knowledge or permissions or both, but anyway, it's there. 

Good stuff, Peter. 



On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

Hi all,

I have posted some examples, along with some notes about them at
<http://spdx.org/wiki/openlogic-spdx-10-beta-examples>.  The examples
are intended to conform to the 1.0 beta version of the spec except that
we used sha-256 checksums -- rather than sha-1 -- to identify the files.

I was not able to figure out how to add that page to the examples
sandbox.  (Perhaps i do not permission to do that? )   Would someone
with more knowledge of (or permissions with) the wiki do that for me?

Comments and feedback are welcome.

Peter Williams
<http://openlogic.com>
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Some SPDX 1.0 beta examples

Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
 

Hi all,

I have posted some examples, along with some notes about them at <http://spdx.org/wiki/openlogic-spdx-10-beta-examples>. The examples are intended to conform to the 1.0 beta version of the spec except that we used sha-256 checksums -- rather than sha-1 -- to identify the files.

I was not able to figure out how to add that page to the examples sandbox. (Perhaps i do not permission to do that? ) Would someone with more knowledge of (or permissions with) the wiki do that for me?

Comments and feedback are welcome.

Peter Williams
<http://openlogic.com>


SPDX RDF Sub-group Mtg 4 concall / gotomeeting details

Bill Schineller
 

Colleagues,
Sorry for sending out the call-in details late.
The call will be at the usual Tuesday time the RDF subgroup has been
meeting the last 3 weeks.
We'll be discussing mechanism for representing the machine-readable
ontology within a single XHTML document. Perhaps Peter can demonstrate
online?


SPDX RDF Sub-group Mtg 4
(TODAY) Tuesday Sept 28, 11AM eastern time

Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada): (877) 435-0230
International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732
Conference code: 7833942033

URL to join meeting:
http://blackducksoftware.na6.acrobat.com/r70154570/


Bill Schineller
Knowledge Base Manager
Black Duck Software Inc.
T: +1.781.810.1829
F: +1.781.891.5145
E: bschineller@blackducksoftware.com
http://www.blackducksoftware.com


Minutes from Sept 23 SPDX call

Philip Odence
 

L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502


Re: HTML Spec page weird look on spdx.org

Philip Odence
 

Kate is doing her best to fix it up asap.

On Sep 26, 2010, at 4:44 PM, "Philippe Ombredanne" <pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote:

All:
this is most likely a known problem, but the draft web page for the spec
at http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification seems to be quite hard to
read (many empty lines), the paragraph numbers are almost all "1", and
the page is munged (the bottom is not displayed) on Firefox.

--
Cordially
Philippe

philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@fossbazaar.org
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


HTML Spec page weird look on spdx.org

Philippe Ombredanne
 

All:
this is most likely a known problem, but the draft web page for the spec at http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification seems to be quite hard to read (many empty lines), the paragraph numbers are almost all "1", and the page is munged (the bottom is not displayed) on Firefox.

--
Cordially
Philippe

philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com


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
more.

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
project.
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.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@fossbazaar.org [mailto:spdx-bounces@fossbazaar.org] On
Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:31 AM
To: spdx@fossbazaar.org
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
goal.
3.5.7 Example:
SourceInfo: The glibc-2.11.1 used here was obtained
from git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.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
mentioned.


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.


OTHER:
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

Cheers,

Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@openlogic.com

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@fossbazaar.org
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


Spec comments and suggestions

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
 

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
goal.
3.5.7 Example:
SourceInfo: The glibc-2.11.1 used here was obtained
from git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.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
mentioned.


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.


OTHER:
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

Cheers,

Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@openlogic.com

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021


SPDX - License List Discussion (special topic call on 9/24 at 11MT/12CT/13ET, )

kate.stewart@...
 

Hi,

Following up from last week and from SPDX call today,
we'll be having a special topic call tomorrow on the licenses.

Here's the dial in information for the call tomorrow:

US 866-740-1260
Look up int'l toll free numbers at
http://www.readytalk.com/an.php?tfnum=8667401260

ID 2404502

Web meeting
Www.readytalk.com
Join meeting with ID 2404502


Embedded below is the agenda, and notes from the previous call.
If I've missed something, please feel free to bring it up by email or on the call tomorrow.

Look for some pointers to web sites to be mailed out before the call.

Thanks, Kate

--- On Thu, 9/16/10, kate.stewart@att.net <kate.stewart@att.net> wrote:

From: kate.stewart@att.net <kate.stewart@att.net>
Subject: Reminder: License Focus Call at 11am CDT (1600 UTC) for 30 minutes
To: spdx@fossbazaar.org
...
Agenda:

see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SPDX_License_List

1) discuss how we want summary table structured - see
proposals in link above,  any others?
approach propose by Callaway was felt reasonable.
We'll go with the embedded version in the name varient for now, and adjust later unless someone feels very strongly.


2) check there is concensus on the 1 page per license on
SPDX approach,  if not, who has alternate proposals.
seems to be ok, but revisit after RDF figured out a bit more to make sure can handle. Discuss with wider audience a bit.

3) volunteers to help with pulling the license list
together in form above (based on what's in Appendix I today,
and mail list input)?   Then translate into
the forms decided above. 

(we may want to defer the following until wider audience
has chance to participate)

4) logistics - process for accepting new license into
list,  pre 1.0 freeze, and then post.

5) what to carry in the SPDX spec,  and what to carry
on the web site?

anything else to add?

Kate


launchpad.net RDF

Philippe Ombredanne
 

All:
as discussed during today's call here are some pointers to Launchpad RDF:

This is an example of a project page:
https://launchpad.net/do
and the matching RDF metadata:
https://launchpad.net/do/+rdf
or:
https://launchpad.net/launchpad
and https://launchpad.net/launchpad/+rdf

The spec for the RDF is there:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/db-devel/files/head%3A/lib/canonical/launchpad/rdfspec/

--
Cordially
Philippe

philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com


SPDX field Proposal: Optional SPDX author comment field.

Mark Gisi
 

Issue: Not clear how to include SPDX author comments to the consumers of the SPDX file. For example, a SPDX author may like to include a disclaimer, assumptions made, context of the analysis performed and so forth.

 

Proposal: Include an optional field for the SPDX file that enables authors (i.e., producers) of the SPDX file to provide general comments to the consumers of the SPDX file.

 

Suggested Draft:

2.5 SPDX Author Comments

 

2.5.1 Purpose: An optional field for authors of the SPDX file content to provide general comments to the consumers of the SPDX content.

 

2.5.2 Intent: Here, the intent is to provide readers/reviewers with comments by the author of the SDPX …

 

2.5.3 Cardinality: Optional one or more.

 

2.5.4 Tag: “AuthorComment:”

 

2.5.5 RDF: /RDF/SPDXDoc/Describes/Package/AuthorComment

 

2.5.6 Data Format: free form text that can span multiple lines.

 

2.5.7 Example: AuthorComment: This information is provided "as is" without any warranty. It does not represent legal advice...

 

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Senior Intellectual Property Manager

Tel (510) 749-2016 | Fax (510) 749-4552

 


Agenda for Sept 23 call

Philip Odence
 

Meeting Time: Sept 23, 8am PDT / 10 am CDT / 11am EDT / 15:00 UTC

Conf call dial-in:
Conference code:  7812589502
Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada):  (877) 435-0230
International dial-in number: (253) 336-6732
For those dialing in from other regions, a list of toll free numbers can be found: 
https://www.intercallonline.com/portlets/scheduling/viewNumbers/viewNumber.do?ownerNumber=6053870&audioType=RP&viewGa=false&ga=OFF
Web:
Note, we will be using a different URL for each meeting for purposes of taking attendance. When you login please include your full name and company name in this form: Phil Odence, Black Duck Software so I can just copy/paste into minutes. THX.
Attendance
Approval of minutes (from Sept 9 and Aug 26)
Outreach and evangelism:
Common Messaging/Presentation – PhilO
Industry Venues – PhilR
Website – PhilO/Martin
Roll Out Update - KimW/JohnE (volunteer needs, face to face plan)
Legal update from LF Member Counsel call- Rockett
 
Action Items
Note: Drafting related action items are embedded in the Wiki. http://www.spdx.org/wiki/spdx/specification
• Kate- Transfer document (.pdf) back to WIKI. IN PROCESS
• Kate- Clean up the sharing analysis to what is accurate.  IN PROCESS
• JeffL (w/Bill/Gary- Update zlib based on new specification  IN PROCESS
• All- Look for new examples to add to site. IN PROCESS
• KimW- Sent rollout slides to mailing list
• RDF Group- Work out syntax for 5.6/5.7
• Bill S- Add Ed W to the RDF group
• Kate- Track and (when Wiki is back up) implement changes described in Spec section below.
• PeterW- Implement issue tracking system.

Technical Agenda
Spec update:  Kate
RDF workgroup update: Bill
Tool repository: Gary/Kate/Bill
Licenses: special working session on Friday at 12 CDT


L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502

1261 - 1280 of 1377