Re: public comments: release candidate version 3 (rc3)


Hi Till

My take is that if we define one type of license we need to define them all. It would be an unnecessary burden on the complexity and clarity of the Specification. While we are defining the key requirements of a quality open source compliance program, the specification itself is not the appropriate place for educational activity on specific aspects of open source, while our reference material (such as the curriculum) is the appropriate venue. The curriculum already contains descriptions of permissive, copyleft and so on.



On Nov 18, 2019, at 3:16, Till Jaeger via Lists.Openchainproject.Org <> wrote:

Dear Mark,

Why not defining "Copyleft"? Copyleft is a crucial issue it would be a pitty
to hide this behind "additional licensing obligations" (which is quite



Am 17.11.19 um 08:06 schrieb Mark Gisi:
We have receive feedback from the larger public as part of the public
comments stage. Some of which has been incorporated in to the 2.1 draft rc3
while the remainder was queued for the next major version revision that
commences January 2020. Recent updates added in draft rc3 included:

· SPDX project updated the definition of SPDX

· Improve the word flow of the compliant artifact definition (section

· An update to the compliant artifact examples definition to include:
“build and install scripts”

· "copyleft obligations" was replaced with "additional licensing
obligations" – because copyleft was not defined, used only once and was too

· Lowercased ‘S’ in “Software” in definition section 2.2

The current draft is available at:

Past readers of the spec might find the marked up version useful:

You can send public comments feedback via:

· the Mailing list: the list

· the issues wiki: issues list
<>; or

· replying to me directly if you wish to remain anonymous
(mark.gisi@... <mailto:mark.gisi@...>)



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

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

Join to automatically receive all group messages.