[Lf_cgl_registration] Whether still support CGL3.2 Registration?

[Joe.MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Joe MacDonald)]

Hi Dongyu,

[Re: [Lf_cgl_registration] Whether still support CGL3.2 Registration?] On 11.02.25 (Fri 02:08) Dongyu.Zhen wrote:

> Hello Dan,
> > CGL3.2 is quite old. Have you looked at the CGL 4.0 specification? I
> > suggest you start with that and see how compliant you are. It's still
> > possible for you to register and disclose your compliance even if you
> > are not 100% compliant to all Priority 1 features, but in that case,
> > you will not be given the "CGL 4.0 Compliant" designation, but we will
> > still list your registration/disclosure on the web site.
> >
> 
> Thank you for your letter, I will meticulous peruse the content in the
> website.And I think maybe I should suggest my leader consider to start
> from CGL4.0.

I think that's the best course of action for you.  We made many
improvements in both the specification and the registration process in
4.0 and I think it will benefit you and your team to consider that the
right starting point for your efforts.

> Before we hope to start from CGL3.2 ,because considered the following:
> On one hand , we need to achieve no less than CGL3 Registration for
> industry applications.
> On the other hand, we consider possible CGL4.0 needs more than CGL3.2
> stringent requirements and needs more time to conquer some difficulties,
> so we want to begin from the simple point.

This is a good question but let me assure you that one of our goals with
the release of the 4.0 specification was to improve the quality and
clarity of the requirements over past versions of the specification.
That means that we think the 4.0 specification is the easiest CGL
specification to understand and to implement ever.  We worked very hard
on making sure the document really said what it meant so you would know
what you needed to do in order to meet the specification.

At the same time, as Dan mentioned, we did insist that everyone
implement all P1 requirements in order to be listed as a fully
compliant distribution, but we also wanted to ensure distributions that
had implemented many P1s but not all of them could still be recognized.
A recent example of this is SUSE.  They recently completed a full
registration for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 on x86_64.  Their
32-bit version of the distribution had nearly all of the P1s implemented
as well so we listed them on the CGL Registered Distributions website in
a section that indicates not all P1s are met but many are and the
registration has still been approved by the CGL workgroup.

In short, if there are some P1 requirements that are not of any interest
to your customers, but most of them are, you are still encouraged to do
a registration and we can accommodate that for you.

> Maybe my expression was not very appropriate,because my English is not
> verywell,please forgive me.
> 
> Again,thank you very much:)

Thank you for contacting us!
-Joe.

> 
> Warmest Regards,
> Dongyu Zhen
> _______________________________________________
> Lf_cgl_registration mailing list
> Lf_cgl_registration at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_cgl_registration

-- 
Joe MacDonald, Sr. Member of Technical Staff, Linux Products Group, Wind River
direct 613.270.5750     mobile 613.291.7421     fax 613.592.2283