[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEP-5 and SPDX

Le Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:13:24AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> 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.

Hi Stefano,

I am not blaming anybody, sorry if I made myself misunderstood.  I asked “why
wouldn't we participate” as a proposition, and listed the DPLs to show that,
if we want to contact SPDX, we may have a some good communication channels.

> 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.

I did the comparative review of the license names, that Lars put on the wiki
and that eventually led SPDX to reduce differences and report this on our wiki.


> 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).

I volunteered in the past to contact SPDX as DEP driver.

  (see License shortnames)

Somebody else was chosen.


Following a comment on this mailing list earlier this week, I opened a page
(http://wiki.debian.org/SPDX) to collect ideas on what could be done to make
SPDX 2.0 suitable for adoption by Debian.  In its simplest form, participating
could be just forwarding comments about issues as easy to solve as during the
1.0 round, like the short license lists.  Indeed, I see on their front page:

  “Participation in the SPDX workgroup is open to all.”

So please forget about my use of “as a project”, it reflected my wrong feelings
about how welcome are contributions to SPDX from people who do not participate
to the conference calls.

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: