Date
1 - 2 of 2
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@... 720 240 4545 | phone 720 240 4556 | fax 1 888 OpenLogic | toll free www.openlogic.com OpenLogic, Inc. Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021 |
|
|
|
Gary O'Neall
Good point on the copyright holder/copyright information. We could have all
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@... [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 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@... 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@... https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx |
|
|