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 'implications' > This last one is a big concern for me. What I've been seeing, and I > 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 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
