On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:42:55AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> I'm hesitant to go down this road for a number of reasons:
> 5) It implies that we're planning on implementing the full SPDX
> specification. And we're not.
dunno -- but social voluntary projects can scarcely be
(fairly) criticized for not implementing some full
specification unless they have undertaken to do so. There is
no privity of relationship with anonymous makers of
This last one is a big concern for me. What I've been seeing, and
don't mean to suggest this is some intentional sinister scheme, is
that the confusion between the SPDX abbreviation system and the full
SPDX spec is being used to make the full SPDX effort look more viable
or popular than it actually is.
It would seem that the implication of approval or dis-approval
of a emerging standard (I have no dog in the 'full SPDX
effort', and know not, nor care, really, if it is viable or
not) ... is a commercial marketing concern, rather than a
technical or a legal matt
How does this fall within the 'wheel-house' of the
non-commercial Fedora Project?
-- Russ herrold