Date   

Invitation: OpenChain Workgroup Initial Meeting @ Weekly from 11am to 12pm on Tuesday from Tue Aug 26 to Tue Dec 16 (Michael Dolan)

Michael Dolan <mdolan@...>
 

OpenChain Workgroup Initial Meeting

Audio portion:

Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326
UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan

For international call instructions, please visit the website below. Please note you will have to enter the US Conference number as part of the instructions:
http://www.uberconference.com/international/access

Screen share (if used): go to http://uberconference.com/mdolan

When
Weekly from 11am to 12pm on Tuesday from Tue Aug 26 to Tue Dec 16 Eastern Time
Where
Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326 UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan (map)
Calendar
Michael Dolan
Who
Michael Dolan - organizer
christopher.ekren@...
ssmolen@...
arnold.niessen@...
kellyw@...
westlakejeremyj@...
christine_nakata@...
celine.fontaine@...
oliver.fendt@...
alyssa.harveydawson@...
peter.wiedemann@...
HerdKennethR@...
Jeremiah Foster
vcracini@...
j-manbeck2@...
armijn@...
dmarr@...
alice.chuang@...
dmg@...
olivier.thirard@...
kcopenhaver@...
jilayne.lovejoy@...
soeren_rabenstein@...
karen@...
jaeger@...
ballhausen@...
claus-peter.wiedemann@...
ibrahim.h@...
Mark.Gisi@...
jbuttura@...
Alex Newson
scott.lamons@...
eileen.evans@...
nissa.strottman@...
Helen Tieh
openchain@...

Going?   All events in this series:   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account openchain@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


subscribe

Till Jaeger
 


Hello World!

Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 

Hello,

Firstly, and most importantly, I'd really like to thank those who've done the organization and brainstorming to get this list and idea off the ground. I know there are a lot of people behind the scenes at the Linux Foundation and other places who've done a lot of important work. Thank you.

Secondly, I have some concern around cadence. Telephone meetings once every week require momentum, otherwise its just a bit of conversation and while that is always good, it doesn't show much progress. I'd recommend once every other week unless its demonstrated that more is needed. If we stick to once a week, the project will likely have to have some project management -- milestones, deliverables, deadlines. There are already a lot of resources for people to discuss compliance, FSF compliance lists, FSFE legal, Debian-legal, etc. We don't need another list, we need codified methodology that's widely accepted both de facto and de jure.

Lastly, I'd strongly urge all of us to kill our darlings. We need to not try and chose technology winners.  For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development) and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem. Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market, for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema. If SPDX is the right and only ISO certifiable solution, we ought to be able to demonstrate that in detail and with strong technical and legal support. 

To be successful, you'll have to be widely adopted. This is the exact same measure of success FOSS software projects have to meet. The recent migration of systemd into Debian forcing Ubuntu to migrate away from Upstart ought to be a cautionary tale: forks often fail. 

Please don't fork the compliance process. Please make it better, standardized, and transparent.

Warm regards,

Jeremiah

--
Jeremiah C. Foster
GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

Pelagicore AB
Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden
M: +46 (0)73 093 0506


Re: Hello World!

Dave Marr
 

On Aug 28, 2014, at 1:39 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@pelagicore.com> wrote:

Hello,

Firstly, and most importantly, I'd really like to thank those who've done the organization and brainstorming to get this list and idea off the ground. I know there are a lot of people behind the scenes at the Linux Foundation and other places who've done a lot of important work. Thank you.
Echoing the thanks to the LF for kindly hosting the WG.

Secondly, I have some concern around cadence. Telephone meetings once every week require momentum, otherwise its just a bit of conversation and while that is always good, it doesn't show much progress. I'd recommend once every other week unless its demonstrated that more is needed. If we stick to once a week, the project will likely have to have some project management -- milestones, deliverables, deadlines. There are already a lot of resources for people to discuss compliance, FSF compliance lists, FSFE legal, Debian-legal, etc. We don't need another list, we need codified methodology that's widely accepted both de facto and de jure.
Could not agree more. BTW in addition to Mike’s support on hosting the discussion, we already have a PM on this list. Kelly Williams is not an open source expert but here for the PM aspect. We must not allow this to devolve into another list.

Lastly, I'd strongly urge all of us to kill our darlings. We need to not try and chose technology winners. For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development) and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem. Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market, for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema. If SPDX is the right and only ISO certifiable solution, we ought to be able to demonstrate that in detail and with strong technical and legal support.
Agreed re no sacred cows. SPDX has a lot of thought built into it already by folks who understand the way software moves through software companies, hence the initial comments.

Towards offering some initial thoughts re attribution formats, would think we’d want a format that (1) allows easy reuse, (2) automation potential via metadata-tagged fields, (3) essential data types defined, (4) a data schema that allows file-level tracking, and (5) integratability with the most popular version control systems. Probably more comes to mind by others.

Would you be willing to work with Jilayne and others on the Workstream-still-to-be-formed on the appropriate options?

To be successful, you'll have to be widely adopted. This is the exact same measure of success FOSS software projects have to meet. The recent migration of systemd into Debian forcing Ubuntu to migrate away from Upstart ought to be a cautionary tale: forks often fail.

Please don't fork the compliance process. Please make it better, standardized, and transparent.
Again, could not agree more. As a separate note re Workstreams — a possible way for us to approach that is to first have a top level discussion on the desired characteristics of the needed elements before breaking that discussion off, into its Workstream. This discussion is an example.

Thanks,
Dave


Updated Invitation: OpenChain Workgroup Weekly Meeting @ Weekly from 11am to 12pm on Tuesday from Tue Aug 26 to Tue Dec 16 (Michael Dolan)

mdolan@linuxfoundation.org <mdolan@...>
 

This event has been changed.

Changed: OpenChain Workgroup Weekly Meeting

Audio portion:

Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326
UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan

For international call instructions, please visit the website below. Please note you will have to enter the US Conference number as part of the instructions:
http://www.uberconference.com/international/access

Screen share (if used): go to http://uberconference.com/mdolan

When
Weekly from 11am to 12pm on Tuesday from Tue Aug 26 to Tue Dec 16 Eastern Time
Where
Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326 UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan (map)
Calendar
Michael Dolan
Who
Michael Dolan - organizer
christopher.ekren@...
ssmolen@...
arnold.niessen@...
kellyw@...
westlakejeremyj@...
christine_nakata@...
celine.fontaine@...
oliver.fendt@...
alyssa.harveydawson@...
peter.wiedemann@...
HerdKennethR@...
Jeremiah Foster
vcracini@...
j-manbeck2@...
armijn@...
dmarr@...
alice.chuang@...
dmg@...
olivier.thirard@...
kcopenhaver@...
jilayne.lovejoy@...
soeren_rabenstein@...
karen@...
jaeger@...
ballhausen@...
claus-peter.wiedemann@...
ibrahim.h@...
Mark.Gisi@...
jbuttura@...
Alex Newson
scott.lamons@...
eileen.evans@...
nissa.strottman@...
Helen Tieh
openchain@...
dominique.toupin@...

Going?   All events in this series:   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account openchain@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


Re: Hello World!

Mark Gisi
 

Hi Jeremiah,

 

>>> Secondly, I have some concern around cadence.

 

I am ok with either a weekly or biweekly cadence.

 

>>> Lastly, I'd strongly urge all of us to kill our darlings. We need to not try and chose technology winners.

 

I generally agree. One point I expressed at Tuesday’s meeting was that we need to focus on requirements (the what) and not specific processes or tools (the how). Different organizations will likely want to invest differently in processes and tools. As long as an organization can satisfy a standard set of requirements they should be good. We might provide example implementations or perhaps recommend certain technologies, but the effort should largely be requirements driven, and process and tool agnostic.

 

Taking off my OpenChain hat and putting on my SPDX hat - being one of the largest producers and consumers of SPDX data and an active participant in the SPDX working groups, I feel somewhat obliged to provide additional clarification on SPDX. I will do so in a separate email thread to avoid distracting from the spirit of your points.

 

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Senior Intellectual Property Manager

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

 

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jeremiah Foster
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:40 AM
To: openchain@...
Subject: [OpenChain] Hello World!

 

Hello,

 

Firstly, and most importantly, I'd really like to thank those who've done the organization and brainstorming to get this list and idea off the ground. I know there are a lot of people behind the scenes at the Linux Foundation and other places who've done a lot of important work. Thank you.

 

Secondly, I have some concern around cadence. Telephone meetings once every week require momentum, otherwise its just a bit of conversation and while that is always good, it doesn't show much progress. I'd recommend once every other week unless its demonstrated that more is needed. If we stick to once a week, the project will likely have to have some project management -- milestones, deliverables, deadlines. There are already a lot of resources for people to discuss compliance, FSF compliance lists, FSFE legal, Debian-legal, etc. We don't need another list, we need codified methodology that's widely accepted both de facto and de jure.

 

Lastly, I'd strongly urge all of us to kill our darlings. We need to not try and chose technology winners.  For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development) and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem. Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market, for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema. If SPDX is the right and only ISO certifiable solution, we ought to be able to demonstrate that in detail and with strong technical and legal support. 

 

To be successful, you'll have to be widely adopted. This is the exact same measure of success FOSS software projects have to meet. The recent migration of systemd into Debian forcing Ubuntu to migrate away from Upstart ought to be a cautionary tale: forks often fail. 

 

Please don't fork the compliance process. Please make it better, standardized, and transparent.

 

Warm regards,

 

Jeremiah

 

--

Jeremiah C. Foster

GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

 

Pelagicore AB

Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden

M: +46 (0)73 093 0506


Re: Hello World!

Mark Gisi
 

Jeremiah raised some common concerns about SPDX that, as an early adopter, I wanted to share my experiences.

 

>> while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX

>> version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development)

 

SPDX is a specification and not a tool. It is analogous to PDF, which is also a specification. Specification details are largely relevant to tool developers and not so much to the tool end users. Most of us view PDF files using one tool or another, but very few of us know what the specifications looks like (nor should we need to). Therefore updates to a specification largely only impact tool developers. Adobe released multiple versions of the PDF spec over the course of the first few years.  This is to be expected.

 

>> Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a

>> Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market,

>> for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema.

 

Since SPDX is a specification I assume you are referring to tool support. I understand your concerns here. Additional tool support is a place where SPDX could benefit.

 

>> For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted.

 

Although the jury is still out on SPDX, it is progressing through the typical stages of technology adoption as described in Geoffrey Moore’s entrepreneurial bible: “Crossing the Chasm”.  At Wind River we see early adopter participation rapidly increasing.  We have seen a tripling in customer usage over the past 12 months which includes traffic to our free SPDX file generation website (spdx.windriver.com). Similarly, PDF too got off to a slow start, yet triumphed in the end.

 

>> and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem.

 

Wind River’s adoption was heavily driven by a mission critical problem we faced. Wind River offers a Linux Distro kit consisting of more than 1000 software packages plus a kernel. In the beginning, customers demanded contractually that we deliver “complete” licensing information using their “customized” format. This was a nightmare. We were required to rummage through millions of source files to grab the specified licensing information to be put into the customer’s “custom” format.  After we preformed this task it was repeated by other organizations downstream in the supply chain. We understood this cost could be significantly mitigated if there was a commonly accepted file format we could use to record and exchange licensing information. SPDX directly solved this problem. We also utilize SPDX data in our internal compliance program.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Gisi, Mark
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:40 AM
To: Jeremiah Foster; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Hello World!

 

Hi Jeremiah,

 

>>> Secondly, I have some concern around cadence.

 

I am ok with either a weekly or biweekly cadence.

 

>>> Lastly, I'd strongly urge all of us to kill our darlings. We need to not try and chose technology winners.

 

I generally agree. One point I expressed at Tuesday’s meeting was that we need to focus on requirements (the what) and not specific processes or tools (the how). Different organizations will likely want to invest differently in processes and tools. As long as an organization can satisfy a standard set of requirements they should be good. We might provide example implementations or perhaps recommend certain technologies, but the effort should largely be requirements driven, and process and tool agnostic.

 

Taking off my OpenChain hat and putting on my SPDX hat - being one of the largest producers and consumers of SPDX data and an active participant in the SPDX working groups, I feel somewhat obliged to provide additional clarification on SPDX. I will do so in a separate email thread to avoid distracting from the spirit of your points.

 

- Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Senior Intellectual Property Manager

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

 

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jeremiah Foster
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:40 AM
To: openchain@...
Subject: [OpenChain] Hello World!

 

Hello,

 

Firstly, and most importantly, I'd really like to thank those who've done the organization and brainstorming to get this list and idea off the ground. I know there are a lot of people behind the scenes at the Linux Foundation and other places who've done a lot of important work. Thank you.

 

Secondly, I have some concern around cadence. Telephone meetings once every week require momentum, otherwise its just a bit of conversation and while that is always good, it doesn't show much progress. I'd recommend once every other week unless its demonstrated that more is needed. If we stick to once a week, the project will likely have to have some project management -- milestones, deliverables, deadlines. There are already a lot of resources for people to discuss compliance, FSF compliance lists, FSFE legal, Debian-legal, etc. We don't need another list, we need codified methodology that's widely accepted both de facto and de jure.

 

Lastly, I'd strongly urge all of us to kill our darlings. We need to not try and chose technology winners.  For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development) and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem. Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market, for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema. If SPDX is the right and only ISO certifiable solution, we ought to be able to demonstrate that in detail and with strong technical and legal support. 

 

To be successful, you'll have to be widely adopted. This is the exact same measure of success FOSS software projects have to meet. The recent migration of systemd into Debian forcing Ubuntu to migrate away from Upstart ought to be a cautionary tale: forks often fail. 

 

Please don't fork the compliance process. Please make it better, standardized, and transparent.

 

Warm regards,

 

Jeremiah

 

--

Jeremiah C. Foster

GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

 

Pelagicore AB

Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden

M: +46 (0)73 093 0506

 


Re: Hello World!

Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 




On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremiah,
>
>  
>
> >>> Secondly, I have some concern around cadence.
>
>  
>
> I am ok with either a weekly or biweekly cadence.
>
>  
>
> >>> Lastly, I'd strongly urge all of us to kill our darlings. We need to not try and chose technology winners.
>
>  
>
> I generally agree. One point I expressed at Tuesday’s meeting was that we need to focus on requirements (the what) and not specific processes or tools (the how). Different organizations will likely want to invest differently in processes and tools. As long as an organization can satisfy a standard set of requirements they should be good. We might provide example implementations or perhaps recommend certain technologies, but the effort should largely be requirements driven, and process and tool agnostic.


You said what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

>
> Taking off my OpenChain hat and putting on my SPDX hat - being one of the largest producers and consumers of SPDX data and an active participant in the SPDX working groups, I feel somewhat obliged to provide additional clarification on SPDX. I will do so in a separate email thread to avoid distracting from the spirit of your points.

I look very much forward to hearing about your experience because tooling is something that is surely going to be important and WR's experience here is highly relevant. Thank you very much.

Cheers,

Jeremiah


Re: Hello World!

Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 




On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2014, at 1:39 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Firstly, and most importantly, I'd really like to thank those who've done the organization and brainstorming to get this list and idea off the ground. I know there are a lot of people behind the scenes at the Linux Foundation and other places who've done a lot of important work. Thank you.
>
> Echoing the thanks to the LF for kindly hosting the WG.
>
> > Secondly, I have some concern around cadence. Telephone meetings once every week require momentum, otherwise its just a bit of conversation and while that is always good, it doesn't show much progress. I'd recommend once every other week unless its demonstrated that more is needed. If we stick to once a week, the project will likely have to have some project management -- milestones, deliverables, deadlines. There are already a lot of resources for people to discuss compliance, FSF compliance lists, FSFE legal, Debian-legal, etc. We don't need another list, we need codified methodology that's widely accepted both de facto and de jure.
>
> Could not agree more.  BTW in addition to Mike’s support on hosting the discussion, we already have a PM on this list.  Kelly Williams is not an open source expert but here for the PM aspect.  We must not allow this to devolve into another list.

Excellent news, hello Kelly! If I can be a PM resource in anyway, taking minutes, issue tracking, what have you, please let me know.

>
> > Lastly, I'd strongly urge all of us to kill our darlings. We need to not try and chose technology winners.  For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development) and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem. Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market, for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema. If SPDX is the right and only ISO certifiable solution, we ought to be able to demonstrate that in detail and with strong technical and legal support.
>
> Agreed re no sacred cows.  SPDX has a lot of thought built into it already by folks who understand the way software moves through software companies, hence the initial comments.
>
> Towards offering some initial thoughts re attribution formats, would think we’d want a format that (1) allows easy reuse, (2) automation potential via metadata-tagged fields, (3) essential data types defined, (4) a data schema that allows file-level tracking, and (5) integratability with the most popular version control systems.  Probably more comes to mind by others.

+1

> Would you be willing to work with Jilayne and others on the Workstream-still-to-be-formed on the appropriate options?

I'm more than happy to provide time and resources to the workstream; I'm invested in OpenChain, I see it as a great opportunity to mitigate the last major hurdle to FOSS adoption.

> > To be successful, you'll have to be widely adopted. This is the exact same measure of success FOSS software projects have to meet. The recent migration of systemd into Debian forcing Ubuntu to migrate away from Upstart ought to be a cautionary tale: forks often fail.
> >
> > Please don't fork the compliance process. Please make it better, standardized, and transparent.
>
> Again, could not agree more.  As a separate note re Workstreams — a possible way for us to approach that is to first have a top level discussion on the desired characteristics of the needed elements before breaking that discussion off, into its Workstream.  This discussion is an example.

I agree and am heartened by the fact that so many on the list seem already well prepared, have thought about the issues and are stakeholders. That can be hard to measure at distance over the phone but I'm grateful to your response and Mark Gisi's which show this list has great potential.

Regards,

Jeremiah


Re: Hello World!

Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...> wrote:

Jeremiah raised some common concerns about SPDX that, as an early adopter, I wanted to share my experiences.

 

>> while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX

>> version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development)

 

SPDX is a specification and not a tool.


Okay, I confess I view it more as a tool, good to have this clarified for me.
 

It is analogous to PDF, which is also a specification. Specification details are largely relevant to tool developers and not so much to the tool end users. Most of us view PDF files using one tool or another, but very few of us know what the specifications looks like (nor should we need to). Therefore updates to a specification largely only impact tool developers. Adobe released multiple versions of the PDF spec over the course of the first few years.  This is to be expected.

 

>> Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a

>> Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market,

>> for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema.

 

Since SPDX is a specification I assume you are referring to tool support. I understand your concerns here. Additional tool support is a place where SPDX could benefit.

 

>> For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted.

 

Although the jury is still out on SPDX, it is progressing through the typical stages of technology adoption as described in Geoffrey Moore’s entrepreneurial bible: “Crossing the Chasm”.  At Wind River we see early adopter participation rapidly increasing.  We have seen a tripling in customer usage over the past 12 months which includes traffic to our free SPDX file generation website (spdx.windriver.com). Similarly, PDF too got off to a slow start, yet triumphed in the end.

 

>> and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem.

 

Wind River’s adoption was heavily driven by a mission critical problem we faced. Wind River offers a Linux Distro kit consisting of more than 1000 software packages plus a kernel. In the beginning, customers demanded contractually that we deliver “complete” licensing information using their “customized” format. This was a nightmare. We were required to rummage through millions of source files to grab the specified licensing information to be put into the customer’s “custom” format.  After we preformed this task it was repeated by other organizations downstream in the supply chain. We understood this cost could be significantly mitigated if there was a commonly accepted file format we could use to record and exchange licensing information. SPDX directly solved this problem. We also utilize SPDX data in our internal compliance program.


Thanks very much for this email. Puts SPDX into the right perspective for me. I've sort of viewed it from a software engineer's view as this thing I have to add not knowing really why. If it does provide a software Bill of Materials that can effectively provide assurance in the supply chain then clearly its a solution to a very real problem.

Regards,

Jeremiah
 


Re: Hello World!

Philip Odence
 

Hey Jeremiah,

It’s been a while. Forgive me for doing a lousy job educating you on SPDX. Thanks, MarkG for filling in.

Having been involved in SPDX from the outset, I can tell you that there are many issues, but lack of a problem focus really isn’t one. Attached is the high level way we’ve expressed it. We’ve been well-focused, I believe, on providing a lingua franca for partners in a supply chain to exchange software BoM information. There’s been external pressure, by the way, to expand our focus, for example into OpenChain type activities—thanks, Dave Marr, for starting OC and thereby relieving the pressure. 

Adoption is a challenge, a real chicken/egg problem. How do you get people to communicate in your language when it’s hard to find others who are fluent? That said Wind River, TI, Siemens, Samsung, Alcatel-Lucent and others have all started using SPDX internally and increasingly with partners. I have been heartened this year to learn of a number of companies using SPDX who have never been involved with the group developing the standard. We would love their involvement, but that fact that organizations can get value, without being in the middle of SPDX specification development, says to me we’ve turned a corner and that the virtuous cycles are starting to spin.

The SPDX group will stay close to the OpenChain activities. As Bogart said, “I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” 

Phil 

L. Philip Odence
Chair, Linux Foundation SPDX Workgroup
Vice President and General Manager
Black Duck
8 New England Executive Park, Suite 211, Burlington MA 01803
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502
Skype: philip.odence






From: Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:17:56 +0200
To: Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...>
Cc: "openchain@..." <openchain@...>
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Hello World!

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...> wrote:

Jeremiah raised some common concerns about SPDX that, as an early adopter, I wanted to share my experiences.

 

>> while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX

>> version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development)

 

SPDX is a specification and not a tool.


Okay, I confess I view it more as a tool, good to have this clarified for me.
 

It is analogous to PDF, which is also a specification. Specification details are largely relevant to tool developers and not so much to the tool end users. Most of us view PDF files using one tool or another, but very few of us know what the specifications looks like (nor should we need to). Therefore updates to a specification largely only impact tool developers. Adobe released multiple versions of the PDF spec over the course of the first few years.  This is to be expected.

 

>> Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a

>> Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market,

>> for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema.

 

Since SPDX is a specification I assume you are referring to tool support. I understand your concerns here. Additional tool support is a place where SPDX could benefit.

 

>> For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted.

 

Although the jury is still out on SPDX, it is progressing through the typical stages of technology adoption as described in Geoffrey Moore’s entrepreneurial bible: “Crossing the Chasm”.  At Wind River we see early adopter participation rapidly increasing.  We have seen a tripling in customer usage over the past 12 months which includes traffic to our free SPDX file generation website (spdx.windriver.com). Similarly, PDF too got off to a slow start, yet triumphed in the end.

 

>> and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem.

 

Wind River’s adoption was heavily driven by a mission critical problem we faced. Wind River offers a Linux Distro kit consisting of more than 1000 software packages plus a kernel. In the beginning, customers demanded contractually that we deliver “complete” licensing information using their “customized” format. This was a nightmare. We were required to rummage through millions of source files to grab the specified licensing information to be put into the customer’s “custom” format.  After we preformed this task it was repeated by other organizations downstream in the supply chain. We understood this cost could be significantly mitigated if there was a commonly accepted file format we could use to record and exchange licensing information. SPDX directly solved this problem. We also utilize SPDX data in our internal compliance program.


Thanks very much for this email. Puts SPDX into the right perspective for me. I've sort of viewed it from a software engineer's view as this thing I have to add not knowing really why. If it does provide a software Bill of Materials that can effectively provide assurance in the supply chain then clearly its a solution to a very real problem.

Regards,

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


Every other week

Dave Marr
 

Based on feedback rec'd offline (time commitment; also some specific folks who are out next week as they extend their US holiday week) it was suggested we move our OpenChain calls to every other week.

Does that work for folks? If that raises a concern am inviting comment on the list (for shared concerns) or directly to me (if preferred).

For the next call -- proposing for the week after next -- would suggest we discuss a schedule of key topics.

Thanks,
Dave


Re: Every other week

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jilayne.Lovejoy@...>
 

I'd agree that every other week is a good idea.

Perhaps for the schedule of topics, we might take your list of sub-components and flesh out what they mean, what kinds of materials or information is required, etc.

Jilayne

-----Original Message-----
From: openchain-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:openchain-
bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Marr, David
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:39 AM
To: openchain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [OpenChain] Every other week

Based on feedback rec'd offline (time commitment; also some specific folks
who are out next week as they extend their US holiday week) it was
suggested we move our OpenChain calls to every other week.

Does that work for folks? If that raises a concern am inviting comment on the
list (for shared concerns) or directly to me (if preferred).

For the next call -- proposing for the week after next -- would suggest we
discuss a schedule of key topics.

Thanks,
Dave
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@lists.linuxfoundation.org
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.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782


Re: Every other week

Evans, Eileen <eileen.evans@...>
 

I also support meeting bi-weekly instead of weekly. 

 

Best,

Eileen

 

Eileen Evans
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Cloud & Open Source
Hewlett-Packard Company

Mobile: 650.740.9909

3000 Hanover Street
Building 20B, MS 1050
Palo Alto, CA 94304  U.S.A.





 

-----Original Message-----
From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Marr, David; openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Every other week

 

I'd agree that every other week is a good idea.

 

Perhaps for the schedule of topics, we might take your list of sub-components and flesh out what they mean, what kinds of materials or information is required, etc.

 

Jilayne

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-

> bounces@...] On Behalf Of Marr, David

> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:39 AM

> To: openchain@...

> Subject: [OpenChain] Every other week

> Based on feedback rec'd offline (time commitment; also some specific

> folks who are out next week as they extend their US holiday week) it

> was suggested we move our OpenChain calls to every other week.

> Does that work for folks?  If that raises a concern am inviting

> comment on the list (for shared concerns) or directly to me (if preferred).

> For the next call -- proposing for the week after next -- would

> suggest we discuss a schedule of key topics.

> Thanks,

> Dave

> _______________________________________________

> 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.

 

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No:  2557590 ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No:  2548782

 

_______________________________________________

OpenChain mailing list

OpenChain@...

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Re: Hello World!

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jilayne.Lovejoy@...>
 

Thanks for raising the question, Jeremiah, and to Mark for providing the excellent clarification – both to the benefit of all!

 

Jilayne

 

From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jeremiah Foster
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 1:18 AM
To: Gisi, Mark
Cc: openchain@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Hello World!

 

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Gisi, Mark <Mark.Gisi@...> wrote:

Jeremiah raised some common concerns about SPDX that, as an early adopter, I wanted to share my experiences.

 

>> while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted. Debian has its own format and Yocto is using SPDX

>> version 1.1. Its hard to use, has numerous supported versions (1.1, 1.2 and 2.0 in development)

 

SPDX is a specification and not a tool.

 

Okay, I confess I view it more as a tool, good to have this clarified for me.

 

It is analogous to PDF, which is also a specification. Specification details are largely relevant to tool developers and not so much to the tool end users. Most of us view PDF files using one tool or another, but very few of us know what the specifications looks like (nor should we need to). Therefore updates to a specification largely only impact tool developers. Adobe released multiple versions of the PDF spec over the course of the first few years.  This is to be expected.

 

>> Being Java based (there is Go code and python code now) its better suited for those working in a

>> Windows environment and while I'm certain that is a highly lucrative market,

>> for Free Software developers it tends to be anathema.

 

Since SPDX is a specification I assume you are referring to tool support. I understand your concerns here. Additional tool support is a place where SPDX could benefit.

 

>> For example, while SPDX looks great, its not widely adopted.

 

Although the jury is still out on SPDX, it is progressing through the typical stages of technology adoption as described in Geoffrey Moore’s entrepreneurial bible: “Crossing the Chasm”.  At Wind River we see early adopter participation rapidly increasing.  We have seen a tripling in customer usage over the past 12 months which includes traffic to our free SPDX file generation website (spdx.windriver.com). Similarly, PDF too got off to a slow start, yet triumphed in the end.

 

>> and feels a bit like a solution looking for a problem.

 

Wind River’s adoption was heavily driven by a mission critical problem we faced. Wind River offers a Linux Distro kit consisting of more than 1000 software packages plus a kernel. In the beginning, customers demanded contractually that we deliver “complete” licensing information using their “customized” format. This was a nightmare. We were required to rummage through millions of source files to grab the specified licensing information to be put into the customer’s “custom” format.  After we preformed this task it was repeated by other organizations downstream in the supply chain. We understood this cost could be significantly mitigated if there was a commonly accepted file format we could use to record and exchange licensing information. SPDX directly solved this problem. We also utilize SPDX data in our internal compliance program.

 

Thanks very much for this email. Puts SPDX into the right perspective for me. I've sort of viewed it from a software engineer's view as this thing I have to add not knowing really why. If it does provide a software Bill of Materials that can effectively provide assurance in the supply chain then clearly its a solution to a very real problem.

 

Regards,

 

Jeremiah

 


-- 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.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782


Re: Every other week

Dave Marr
 

There seems to be support for every other week, with one request we do it on the first and third Tuesdays each month, but skipping next week due to close-of-summer vacations.

Mike, would you mind updating the invite to reflect that?

All, this means the next meeting is Tuesday 9/16.

Talk with you then!

Dave

On Aug 29, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Marr, David <dmarr@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:

Based on feedback rec'd offline (time commitment; also some specific folks who are out next week as they extend their US holiday week) it was suggested we move our OpenChain calls to every other week.

Does that work for folks? If that raises a concern am inviting comment on the list (for shared concerns) or directly to me (if preferred).

For the next call -- proposing for the week after next -- would suggest we discuss a schedule of key topics.

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


Canceled Event: OpenChain Workgroup Weekly Meeting @ Tue Sep 2, 2014 11am - 12pm (Michael Dolan)

mdolan@linuxfoundation.org <mdolan@...>
 

This event has been canceled and removed from your calendar.

OpenChain Workgroup Weekly Meeting

Audio portion:

Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326
UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan

For international call instructions, please visit the website below. Please note you will have to enter the US Conference number as part of the instructions:
http://www.uberconference.com/international/access

Screen share (if used): go to http://uberconference.com/mdolan

When
Tue Sep 2, 2014 11am – 12pm Eastern Time
Where
Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326 UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan (map)
Calendar
Michael Dolan
Who
Michael Dolan - organizer
oliver.fendt@...
armijn@...
celine.fontaine@...
alyssa.harveydawson@...
ssmolen@...
dmg@...
soeren_rabenstein@...
openchain@...
claus-peter.wiedemann@...
gunnar.nilsson@...
scott.lamons@...
vcracini@...
christine_nakata@...
kcopenhaver@...
ibrahim.h@...
dominique.toupin@...
alice.chuang@...
Alex Newson
eileen.evans@...
jilayne.lovejoy@...
olivier.thirard@...
j-manbeck2@...
dmarr@...
Jeremiah Foster
jaeger@...
Mark.Gisi@...
ballhausen@...
westlakejeremyj@...
HerdKennethR@...
Helen Tieh
kellyw@...
nissa.strottman@...
christopher.ekren@...
jbuttura@...
arnold.niessen@...
karen@...
peter.wiedemann@...

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account openchain@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


No OpenChain call today

Mike Dolan <mdolan@...>
 

Hi everyone, I meant to set up the meeting invite for bi-weekly calls but accidentally setup weekly calls. We will not be meeting today and will resume calls on the first and third Tuesday of every month. My apologies for the confusion. Our next meeting will be September 16th. I will cancel the current invite and setup a new one soon.

— Mike

---
Mike Dolan
Director of Strategic Programs, The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
Email / Google Talk: mdolan@...
---


Canceled Event: OpenChain Workgroup Weekly Meeting @ Weekly from 11am to 12pm on Tuesday from Tue Aug 26 to Tue Dec 16 (Michael Dolan)

mdolan@linuxfoundation.org <mdolan@...>
 

This event has been canceled and removed from your calendar.

OpenChain Workgroup Weekly Meeting

Audio portion:

Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326
UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan

For international call instructions, please visit the website below. Please note you will have to enter the US Conference number as part of the instructions:
http://www.uberconference.com/international/access

Screen share (if used): go to http://uberconference.com/mdolan

When
Weekly from 11am to 12pm on Tuesday from Tue Aug 26 to Tue Dec 16 Eastern Time
Where
Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326 UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan (map)
Calendar
Michael Dolan
Who
Michael Dolan - organizer
christopher.ekren@...
ssmolen@...
arnold.niessen@...
kellyw@...
westlakejeremyj@...
christine_nakata@...
celine.fontaine@...
oliver.fendt@...
alyssa.harveydawson@...
peter.wiedemann@...
HerdKennethR@...
Jeremiah Foster
vcracini@...
j-manbeck2@...
armijn@...
dmarr@...
alice.chuang@...
dmg@...
olivier.thirard@...
kcopenhaver@...
jilayne.lovejoy@...
soeren_rabenstein@...
karen@...
jaeger@...
ballhausen@...
claus-peter.wiedemann@...
ibrahim.h@...
Mark.Gisi@...
jbuttura@...
Alex Newson
scott.lamons@...
eileen.evans@...
nissa.strottman@...
Helen Tieh
openchain@...
dominique.toupin@...
gunnar.nilsson@...

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account openchain@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.


Invitation: OpenChain Working Group (First and Third Tuesday each month) @ Monthly from 10am to 11am on the third Tuesday from Tue Sep 16 to Tue Dec 19, 2017 (Michael Dolan)

Michael Dolan <mdolan@...>
 

OpenChain Working Group (First and Third Tuesday each month)

Audio portion:

Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326
UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan

For international call instructions, please visit the website below. Please note you will have to enter the US Conference number as part of the instructions:
http://www.uberconference.com/international/access

Screen share (if used): go to http://uberconference.com/mdolan

When
Monthly from 10am to 11am on the third Tuesday from Tue Sep 16 to Tue Dec 19, 2017 Eastern Time
Where
Conference Number: +1 (415) 906-5657 Pin: 88326 UberConference URL: http://uberconference.com/mdolan (map)
Calendar
Michael Dolan
Who
Michael Dolan - organizer
openchain@...

Going?   All events in this series:   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this courtesy email at the account openchain@... because you are an attendee of this event.

To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

1 - 20 of 4323