User Tools

Site Tools


openchain:spec-1.1-draft-public-comments

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
openchain:spec-1.1-draft-public-comments [2017/03/20 15:48]
mgisi [13) Suggest: Discuss how to include SPDX in the spec]
openchain:spec-1.1-draft-public-comments [2017/08/21 23:54] (current)
mgisi [14) Suggest: Discuss how we a reference to SPDX in the spec]
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 === Response: === === Response: ===
-Redefined "​Identified Licenses"​ to:  +There was fair amount ​of discussion and proposals on how to update ​the definition ​to be more clear. It was decided, due to limited time, to move this discussion to the next version where we can give it the time it deserves
-**Identified Licenses** - //set of licenses governing ​the FOSS used to construct ​the Supplied Software.//+
  
 ---- ----
Line 81: Line 80:
  
  
-==== 8) Suggest: ​zzzzzz ​====+==== 8) Suggest: ​Rewording of 2.1.2 for clarity ​====
 Submitted By: Sami Atabani and Jilayne Lovejoy Submitted By: Sami Atabani and Jilayne Lovejoy
  
Line 147: Line 146:
  
 ==== 12) Suggest: Adding 3.1.2 Verification Artifact ==== ==== 12) Suggest: Adding 3.1.2 Verification Artifact ====
-Submitted By: The general group discussion.+Submitted By: The general group discussion 
  
 3.1.2 Records exist that demonstrate the document procedure was followed for each Supplied Software release. 3.1.2 Records exist that demonstrate the document procedure was followed for each Supplied Software release.
Line 157: Line 157:
 ---- ----
  
-==== 13) Suggest: Discuss how we a reference to SPDX in the spec ====+==== 13) Suggest: texted edit ==== 
 +Submitted By: Jilayne Lovejoy 
 + 
 +3.1.2 One small edit: 3.1.2 should be “documented” not “document” ​ :) 
 + 
 + 
 +=== Response: === 
 +Fixed. 
 + 
 +---- 
 + 
 +==== 14) Suggest: Discuss how we a reference to SPDX in the spec ====
 Submitted By: General group discussion. Submitted By: General group discussion.
  
Line 169: Line 180:
  
 === Response: === === Response: ===
-TBD.+The section + definition were re-written to include a reference to SPDX. 
 + 
 + 
 +==== 15) Suggest: Minor feedback in section 2.1 ==== 
 +Submitted By: Jilayne Lovejoy 
 + 
 +in 2.1 and the specificity of “electronic communication” and "via a published contact email address” is really just a question I had as to whether we mean to be that narrow/​specific - if I recall, the LF list has both email and phone number and I’d think a phone number would be fine too? In any case, not a key issue, more of a question/​clarification. 
 + 
 + 
 +=== Response: === 
 +TBD -  
 + 
 +---- 
 + 
 +==== 16) Suggest: Minor edit to section 3.2 rationale ==== 
 +Submitted By: Jilayne Lovejoy 
 + 
 +The only other minor edit I had was some wording that I thought seemed a bit extra in the 3.2 Rationale - I was thinking the when it says “an organizations’ typical common FOSS use cases…” that seemed like enough and that “as a result of that organization’s business practices” seems to be saying the same thing in a different way.   
 + 
 +**3.2 Rationale** 
 +To ensure the FOSS management program is sufficiently robust to handle an organization’s 
 +common FOSS use cases <​del>​as a result of that organization’s business practices</​del>​. That a procedure 
 +exists to support this activity and that the procedure is followed. 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +=== Response: === 
 +TBD -  
 + 
 +----
  
openchain/spec-1.1-draft-public-comments.1490024923.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/03/20 15:48 by mgisi