On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Mike Milinkovich < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/08/2015 12:15 PM, Kate Stewart wrote: > >> I agree we should not depend on closed standards. However, the question >> is do we want to be able to reference to external packages that other >> systems are supporting? >> > Its impossible to answer this question, largely because there's not enough data -- what are these "other systems" (Windows?) and what are the "external packages"? > > Beats me. But to me the proposed solution looks much worse than whatever > problem it is that you're trying to solve. Speaking of which, where is the > document that describes the problem you're trying to solve? > > My impression is that the consumers of open source software are trying to > create a system to make it easier to identify and manage the artifacts used > within their organization. Is that correct? This is my assumption as well. > If so, what I am missing is how you are going to motivate the producers of > open source to use such a system. You're already getting our libre software > for free. Why are we going to do more work to make your lives easier? > > My apologies in advance if I'm completely off base here. I think you're on target. Much of this design is coming from the pseudo-standard world where standards are made on paper and forced to be adopted. FOSS works in completely the opposite direction; multiple implementations are tested and then adopted as a standard once proven. If this is not the planned way of working then I suggest looking at W3C's requirements for standards adoption which *requires* two independent implementations of the standard before it can be adopted. Regards, Jeremiah
_______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
