Date   

Re: Meeting times?

Mark Gisi
 

Hi Matija,

We meet the first and third Mondays of the month. On the first Monday we meet at 9am PST to accommodate Europe and on the third Monday at 5pm (17) PST to accommodate Asia. So today we will meet at the latter time. You can find the details here (including phone number).
https://www.openchainproject.org/community

- Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Matija Šuklje
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 12:45 PM
To: openchain@...
Subject: [OpenChain] Meeting times?

Dear all,

it’s almost embarrassing, but I have to ask when all the regular meetings take place these days.

I seem to have an outdated entry/invite in my calendar which tricks me into dialling in on the right day, but a very wrong time (17h CET instead of PST).


cheers,
Matija
--
gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552
www: http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: matija.suklje@...
sip: sip:matija_suklje@...


Meeting times?

Matija Šuklje
 

Dear all,

it’s almost embarrassing, but I have to ask when all the regular meetings take
place these days.

I seem to have an outdated entry/invite in my calendar which tricks me into
dialling in on the right day, but a very wrong time (17h CET instead of PST).


cheers,
Matija
--
gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552
www: http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: matija.suklje@...
sip: sip:matija_suklje@...


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jilayne.Lovejoy@...>
 

Hi Mark,

In reference to your marketing comment below – the main goal of OpenChain, if we could reduce it to one word, I think would be “education.”  By defining the requirements for effective open source management, we are educating people on what that looks like as a first step, even before anyone can certify that they are in conformance of such requirements.  To that end, mentioning SPDX – as the only organized standard for communicating licensing, copyright, provenance, etc. information for (open source) software is part and parcel of that educational goal.  

I see what you mean about the change in definition structure complicating the previous mention. I plan to have a look at this more closely this afternoon, before our call later today, and try to propose some specific language changes.

Thanks,
Jilayne

From: <openchain-bounces@...> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 20, 2017 at 4:37 PM
To: Sami Atabani <Sami.Atabani@...>, J Lovejoy <opensource@...>, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...>
Cc: OpenChain <openchain@...>
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Hi Sami,

 

Artifact 4.1.2 in version 1.0 made reference to several examples (including SPDX). In version 4.1.2 no longer makes references to any examples. The main update to section 4.1  was to accommodate moving the Compliance Artifacts definition from the Definitions section 4.1 where it is used exclusively. The definition never  mentioned SPDX because compliance artifacts by definition are very specifically those things required by open source licenses. SPDX is not a requirement of any license so it does not fit. As I have noted in my last email –

If we want to include SPDX we will need to rework the definition of Compliance Artifacts. Keep in mind this is one of the most important definitions in the entire specification. Suggestions?

 

- Mark

 

 

 

From: Sami Atabani [mailto:Sami.Atabani@...]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:54 AM
To: Gisi, Mark; J Lovejoy; Kate Stewart
Cc: openchain@...
Subject: RE: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

Hi Mark,

 

I recall that we used SPDX as an example so the original wording said something along the lines “such as SPDX” rather than making it a hard requirement to deliver SPDX documents. We discussed at the time that this will be helpful as it will assist the supply chain to better understand what is required to conform.

 

Thanks

 

Sami

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


OpenChain meeting today (Specification & Curriculum)

Kelly Williams
 

Hi Everyone,

 

Reminder the Spec and Curriculum meeting is today at 5pm PST.  Please find attached the agenda slides

 

Join the call: https://www.uberconference.com/kellyw (Note – audio only works with Chrome)
Optional dial in number: 855-889-3011
No PIN needed

 

If you need to use a local phone number, please consult:
https://www.uberconference.com/international for the specific country numbers.

1. Dial the local number based on your location.
2. Enter 855 889 3011, then #.

 

Regards,

Kelly

 

 

 


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Mark Gisi
 

Hi Sami,

 

Artifact 4.1.2 in version 1.0 made reference to several examples (including SPDX). In version 4.1.2 no longer makes references to any examples. The main update to section 4.1  was to accommodate moving the Compliance Artifacts definition from the Definitions section 4.1 where it is used exclusively. The definition never  mentioned SPDX because compliance artifacts by definition are very specifically those things required by open source licenses. SPDX is not a requirement of any license so it does not fit. As I have noted in my last email –

If we want to include SPDX we will need to rework the definition of Compliance Artifacts. Keep in mind this is one of the most important definitions in the entire specification. Suggestions?

 

- Mark

 

 

 

From: Sami Atabani [mailto:Sami.Atabani@...]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:54 AM
To: Gisi, Mark; J Lovejoy; Kate Stewart
Cc: openchain@...
Subject: RE: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

Hi Mark,

 

I recall that we used SPDX as an example so the original wording said something along the lines “such as SPDX” rather than making it a hard requirement to deliver SPDX documents. We discussed at the time that this will be helpful as it will assist the supply chain to better understand what is required to conform.

 

Thanks

 

Sami


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Sami Atabani
 

Hi Mark,

 

I recall that we used SPDX as an example so the original wording said something along the lines “such as SPDX” rather than making it a hard requirement to deliver SPDX documents. We discussed at the time that this will be helpful as it will assist the supply chain to better understand what is required to conform.

 

Thanks

 

Sami

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Gisi, Mark
Sent: 18 March 2017 03:44
To: J Lovejoy; Kate Stewart
Cc: openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

>> I think we want to continue to reinforce this overall picture, not recede from it. 

 

We need to careful here not to conflate a specification for a marketing doc. The specification serves one purpose – define the core set of requirements one should expect every quality open source compliance program must satisfy. The integrity and success of the specification depends upon our ability to maintain that focus in its evolution. We want to avoid diluting  the “product” with marketing spin. That is, the specification does not tell a story.  On the other hand, the OpenChain “project” has a much bigger mission which includes telling stories and making connections using various vehicles  including presentations, white papers, best practice materials and so forth.

 

- Mark

 

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:02 PM
To: Kate Stewart
Cc: openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

I agree with Kate. 

I don't even recall why it when it was dropped. 

 

To add to Kate's point about the overall story: in response to my keynote at the Open Source Leadership Summit where I gave an update on SPDX, FOSSology, and OpenChain, I got quite a few very positive comments about how it was very helpful to see how these things fit together, "I get it", and general interest. 

 

 

I think we want to continue to reinforce this overall picture, not recede from it. 

 

Jilayne 

 

 

 

Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity


On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...> wrote:

Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4, and leave the definition in the specification.   Dropping it is not yellow lined in the 1.1 version of the specification, and not providing an example on how these artifacts can be distributed in a consistent manner weakens the overall story.

 

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Marr <dmarr@...> wrote:

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@...> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@...>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain



 

--

Kate Stewart

Sr. Director of Strategic Programs,  The Linux Foundation

Mobile: +1.512.657.3669

Email / Google Talk: kstewart@...

_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Mark Gisi
 

>> I think we want to continue to reinforce this overall picture, not recede from it. 

 

We need to careful here not to conflate a specification for a marketing doc. The specification serves one purpose – define the core set of requirements one should expect every quality open source compliance program must satisfy. The integrity and success of the specification depends upon our ability to maintain that focus in its evolution. We want to avoid diluting  the “product” with marketing spin. That is, the specification does not tell a story.  On the other hand, the OpenChain “project” has a much bigger mission which includes telling stories and making connections using various vehicles  including presentations, white papers, best practice materials and so forth.

 

- Mark

 

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:02 PM
To: Kate Stewart
Cc: openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

I agree with Kate. 

I don't even recall why it when it was dropped. 

 

To add to Kate's point about the overall story: in response to my keynote at the Open Source Leadership Summit where I gave an update on SPDX, FOSSology, and OpenChain, I got quite a few very positive comments about how it was very helpful to see how these things fit together, "I get it", and general interest. 

 

 

I think we want to continue to reinforce this overall picture, not recede from it. 

 

Jilayne 

 

 

 

Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity


On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...> wrote:

Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4, and leave the definition in the specification.   Dropping it is not yellow lined in the 1.1 version of the specification, and not providing an example on how these artifacts can be distributed in a consistent manner weakens the overall story.

 

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Marr <dmarr@...> wrote:

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@...> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@...>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain



 

--

Kate Stewart

Sr. Director of Strategic Programs,  The Linux Foundation

Mobile: +1.512.657.3669

Email / Google Talk: kstewart@...

_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Mark Gisi
 

Kate,

 

>> Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4

 

Section 4.1 was rewritten several months back to accommodate moving the Compliance Artifacts definition from the Definitions section 4.1 where it is used exclusively.

4.1 Prepare the set of artifacts that each Identified License requires accompany the Supplied Software. They include but are not limited to the following: source code, attribution notices, copyright notices, copy of licenses, modification notifications, written offers and so forth (Compliance Artifacts).

 

SPDX was not included in the definition because it is not a requirement of any open source license. If we want to include SPDX we will need to rework the definition of Compliance Artifacts. Keep in mind this is one of the most important definitions in the entire specifications. Suggestions?

 

- Mark

 

 

From: Kate Stewart [mailto:kstewart@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 10:57 PM
To: David Marr
Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; Gisi, Mark; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4, and leave the definition in the specification.   Dropping it is not yellow lined in the 1.1 version of the specification, and not providing an example on how these artifacts can be distributed in a consistent manner weakens the overall story.

 

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Marr <dmarr@...> wrote:

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Mark Gisi
 

 

Sorry for the delayed response. I am working on several deliverables due tomorrow. I will follow up with this week’s comments by end of tomorrow (Friday).

 

best,

- Mark

 

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of David Marr
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:35 PM
To: Shane Coughlan
Cc: openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

Sure and if we add it back I would support keeping the definition.  Good points.

Dave


On Mar 16, 2017, at 10:31 PM, Shane Coughlan <shane@...> wrote:

I concur with Kate and Jilayne.

 

Shane 


On 17 Mar 2017, at 14:02, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

I agree with Kate. 

I don't even recall why it when it was dropped. 

 

To add to Kate's point about the overall story: in response to my keynote at the Open Source Leadership Summit where I gave an update on SPDX, FOSSology, and OpenChain, I got quite a few very positive comments about how it was very helpful to see how these things fit together, "I get it", and general interest. 

 

 

I think we want to continue to reinforce this overall picture, not recede from it. 

 

Jilayne 

 

 

 

Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity


On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...> wrote:

Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4, and leave the definition in the specification.   Dropping it is not yellow lined in the 1.1 version of the specification, and not providing an example on how these artifacts can be distributed in a consistent manner weakens the overall story.

 

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Marr <dmarr@...> wrote:

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@...> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@...>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain



 

--

Kate Stewart

Sr. Director of Strategic Programs,  The Linux Foundation

Mobile: +1.512.657.3669

Email / Google Talk: kstewart@...

_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain

_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain

_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Dave Marr
 

Sure and if we add it back I would support keeping the definition.  Good points.

Dave

On Mar 16, 2017, at 10:31 PM, Shane Coughlan <shane@...> wrote:

I concur with Kate and Jilayne.

Shane 

On 17 Mar 2017, at 14:02, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

I agree with Kate. 
I don't even recall why it when it was dropped. 

To add to Kate's point about the overall story: in response to my keynote at the Open Source Leadership Summit where I gave an update on SPDX, FOSSology, and OpenChain, I got quite a few very positive comments about how it was very helpful to see how these things fit together, "I get it", and general interest. 


I think we want to continue to reinforce this overall picture, not recede from it. 

Jilayne 



Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity

On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...> wrote:

Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4, and leave the definition in the specification.   Dropping it is not yellow lined in the 1.1 version of the specification, and not providing an example on how these artifacts can be distributed in a consistent manner weakens the overall story.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Marr <dmarr@...> wrote:

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain




--
Kate Stewart
Sr. Director of Strategic Programs,  The Linux Foundation
Mobile: +1.512.657.3669
Email / Google Talk: kstewart@...
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Shane Coughlan <shane@...>
 

I concur with Kate and Jilayne.

Shane 

On 17 Mar 2017, at 14:02, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

I agree with Kate. 
I don't even recall why it when it was dropped. 

To add to Kate's point about the overall story: in response to my keynote at the Open Source Leadership Summit where I gave an update on SPDX, FOSSology, and OpenChain, I got quite a few very positive comments about how it was very helpful to see how these things fit together, "I get it", and general interest. 


I think we want to continue to reinforce this overall picture, not recede from it. 

Jilayne 



Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity

On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...> wrote:

Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4, and leave the definition in the specification.   Dropping it is not yellow lined in the 1.1 version of the specification, and not providing an example on how these artifacts can be distributed in a consistent manner weakens the overall story.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Marr <dmarr@...> wrote:

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain




--
Kate Stewart
Sr. Director of Strategic Programs,  The Linux Foundation
Mobile: +1.512.657.3669
Email / Google Talk: kstewart@...
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

J Lovejoy
 

I agree with Kate. 
I don't even recall why it when it was dropped. 

To add to Kate's point about the overall story: in response to my keynote at the Open Source Leadership Summit where I gave an update on SPDX, FOSSology, and OpenChain, I got quite a few very positive comments about how it was very helpful to see how these things fit together, "I get it", and general interest. 


I think we want to continue to reinforce this overall picture, not recede from it. 

Jilayne 



Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity

On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...> wrote:

Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4, and leave the definition in the specification.   Dropping it is not yellow lined in the 1.1 version of the specification, and not providing an example on how these artifacts can be distributed in a consistent manner weakens the overall story.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Marr <dmarr@...> wrote:

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain




--
Kate Stewart
Sr. Director of Strategic Programs,  The Linux Foundation
Mobile: +1.512.657.3669
Email / Google Talk: kstewart@...
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Kate Stewart
 

Please insert the reference to SPDX documents back into the specification in section 4, and leave the definition in the specification.   Dropping it is not yellow lined in the 1.1 version of the specification, and not providing an example on how these artifacts can be distributed in a consistent manner weakens the overall story.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Marr <dmarr@...> wrote:

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain




--
Kate Stewart
Sr. Director of Strategic Programs,  The Linux Foundation
Mobile: +1.512.657.3669
Email / Google Talk: kstewart@...


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Dave Marr
 

Also we should also consider removing the definition of SPDX since it's no longer specifically referenced in the body of the spec itself.  Credit to Jeff Kaufman from Redhat.  Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@...> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@...>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Malcolm Bain
 

Doing the translation to Spanish, I have quite a few comments regarding coherence of language and capital letters, etc.  

 

(e.g. conformity, compliance, certification are often used as synonyms but elsewhere as specific concepts, there is a “FOSS Management Program” which looks like a defined term, but never else mentioned… )

 

I think there is also a style coherence point, regarding what is the Requirement (existence of X) and what is an Evidence/Artefact (cannot be the same “existence of X” – must be “document evidencing existence of X). I think this goes wrong once or twice, towards the end).

 

I’ll put them all together and highlight when I send the Spanish version - shortly (ETA tomorrow)

 

malcolm

 

De: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] En nombre de Jilayne Lovejoy
Enviado el: miércoles, 15 de marzo de 2017 15:01
Para: Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...>; openchain@...
Asunto: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

HI Mark,

 

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

 

Otherwise, changes look good.

 

Jilayne

 

From: <openchain-bounces@...> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@...>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

 

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jilayne.Lovejoy@...>
 

HI Mark,

One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document”  :)

Otherwise, changes look good.

Jilayne

From: <openchain-bounces@...> on behalf of Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM
To: OpenChain <openchain@...>
Subject: [OpenChain] OpenChain Specification 1.1 draft updates & status

The near final version of the OpenChain Specification 1.1 is available at:

     https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

 

The most recent changes can be found in yellow highlights. We have gone through about 75% of the public comments. We expect to complete  the review of the comments at the upcoming spec group discussion on March 20th. The public comments along with responses can be found on the following wiki page:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

 

best,

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: OpenChain Spec Translation Policy & Process status

Mark Gisi
 

Hi Haksung,

Thanks for taking the initiative here. Please proceed to find a second reviewer and have them contact me. In the interim I will take the next step (inform the OpenChain board, ...).

Best,
- Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Haksung Jang (???)
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:51 AM
To: openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Spec Translation Policy & Process status

On 2017-03-14 오전 3:44, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
Great to hear all is just about ready! Perhaps we could use Haksung’s Specification 1.0 translation submission as a test case for the policy?
Hi,

This is the Korean translation for Openchain Conformance Specification Version 1.0 : https://github.com/hakssung/openchainspec-1.0-kor, and now I think the first thing that I need is to find at least one more Korean contributor. :)

Thanks.
Best Regards,
Haksung

Haksung Jang / 장학성
Senior Research Engineer
Open Source Project, Software Center, CTO, LG Electronics.
p: +82 10 3630 5799
e: haksung.jang@...


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Re: OpenChain Spec Translation Policy & Process status

Haksung
 

On 2017-03-14 오전 3:44, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
Great to hear all is just about ready! Perhaps we could use Haksung’s Specification 1.0 translation submission as a test case for the policy?
Hi,

This is the Korean translation for Openchain Conformance Specification Version 1.0 : https://github.com/hakssung/openchainspec-1.0-kor, and now I think the first thing that I need is to find at least one more Korean contributor. :)

Thanks.
Best Regards,
Haksung

Haksung Jang / 장학성
Senior Research Engineer
Open Source Project, Software Center, CTO, LG Electronics.
p: +82 10 3630 5799
e: haksung.jang@...


Re: OpenChain Spec Translation Policy & Process status

Shane Martin Coughlan <shane@...>
 

Hi Mark

Great to hear all is just about ready! Perhaps we could use Haksung’s Specification 1.0 translation submission as a test case for the policy?

Regards

Shane

On Mar 13, 2017, at 15:26, Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...> wrote:


We were able to review the latest version of the OpenChain Specification translation policy at the March 6th meeting. The latest version of the policy/process can be found here:

https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-translations



Except for minor feedback (and a follow up with the Linux Foundation) the policy looks close to final. We expect to complete it by March 31st. We have had the following volunteers to lead the translation for the following languages:

· Chinese: Hung Chang, Harman

· Korean: Haksung Jang, LG

· Japanese: Noriaki Fukuyasu, Linux Foundation

· Portugese: Bill Weinberg, Linux Foundation

· Spanish: Malcolm Bain, id law partners

· German: Catharina Maracke, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University



This is the last call for feedback. It would be helpful to hear from the contributing translators as well.



- Mark





Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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



_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Re: OpenChain Spec Translation Policy & Process status

Mark Gisi
 

 

Malcolm, I can send translators an editable copy upon request. I will send you a link  shortly.

 

- Mark

 

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Malcolm Bain
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 2:02 AM
To: openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] OpenChain Spec Translation Policy & Process status

 

Thanks – for some reason, I cannot find access to an editable version of v.1.1 (just the pdf). Can anyone point me to  a link?

 

Regards,

 

malcolm

De: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] En nombre de Gisi, Mark
Enviado el: lunes, 13 de marzo de 2017 7:26
Para: openchain@...
Asunto: [OpenChain] OpenChain Spec Translation Policy & Process status

 


We were able to review the latest version of the OpenChain Specification translation policy at the March 6th meeting. The latest version of the policy/process  can be found here:

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/spec-translations

 

Except for minor feedback (and a follow up with the Linux Foundation) the policy looks close to final. We expect to complete it by March 31st. We have had the following volunteers to lead the translation for the following languages:

·         Chinese: Hung Chang, Harman

·         Korean: Haksung Jang, LG

·         Japanese: Noriaki Fukuyasu, Linux Foundation

·         Portugese: Bill Weinberg, Linux Foundation

·         Spanish: Malcolm Bain, id law partners

·         German: Catharina Maracke, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University

 

This is the last call for feedback. It would be helpful to hear from the contributing translators as well.

 

- Mark

 

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

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

 

4121 - 4140 of 4814