On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:26:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> PS: after this done, we need to seriously think if it would make sense
> to try to simply merge our efforts with SPDX. We have at least one
> DPL and two former DPLs in contact with them; why wouldn't Debian as a
> project participate ?
I'm sorry, but such a general statement sounds to me very similar to
"why there is no peace in the world?". SPDX started as an independent
standard by mostly industry partners who did not contact us. There is
little blame on Debian for that.
Once we've been made aware of SPDX, we did all we could to collaborate
with them. I've myself invested quite a bit of time in early DEP-5
discussions to remain compatible with them, e.g. trying to converge on a
common list of license short names. IIRC, Lars did the same when he was
driving DEP-5.
If now there is interest in participating, as a project, in SPDX 2.0,
great! But it won't happen just because someone asks "why aren't we
participating?". Participating requires, well, participation,
i.e. someone volunteering to be a Debian Project representative in the
SPDX 2.0 working group (+ the willingness of the SPDX working group to
have a Debian representative in the working group).
FWIW, SPDX 1.0 goals were not the same as DEP-5. I believe we have
converged on the largest possible common subset of features. That common
subset *might* be larger for SPDX 2.0, but it is too soon to say that
for sure.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature