Technical Team/Minutes/2019-12-03 - Revision history

K.stewart: Add some comments from start, and couple of tweaks.

2019-12-03T19:44:42Z

Add some comments from start, and couple of tweaks.

K.stewart: /* Attendees */ add 2 attendees missed in original list.

2019-12-03T19:38:33Z

‎Attendees: add 2 attendees missed in original list.

Swinslow: /* SPDX Document License */

2019-12-03T19:12:52Z

‎SPDX Document License

Goneall: Created page with "December 3, 2019 == Attendees == * Gary O’Neall * Alexios Zavras * Kate Stewart * Jim Hutchinson * Steve Winslow * Matthew Crawford * William Bartholomew * Alan Tse * Mark..."

2019-12-03T19:10:15Z

Created page with "December 3, 2019 == Attendees == * Gary O’Neall * Alexios Zavras * Kate Stewart * Jim Hutchinson * Steve Winslow * Matthew Crawford * William Bartholomew * Alan Tse * Mark..."

New page

December 3, 2019
== Attendees ==
* Gary O’Neall
* Alexios Zavras
* Kate Stewart
* Jim Hutchinson
* Steve Winslow
* Matthew Crawford
* William Bartholomew
* Alan Tse
* Mark Atwood
* Rose Judge
* Nisha Kumar
* Philippe Ombredanne

==3.0 Model==
* Proposed update from William
* Came out of feedback from OMG group
* Feedback on current model:
** Exclusively focused on licensing and IP
** Not very approachable
* Different profiles for the different usages (e.g. IP, Security)
* Feedback: Change “Intellection Property” to “Licensing” for profile name
* Tooling – do we need to support all profiles?
** SPDX focused on syntax
** Producers and consumers have policies on what profiles are supported
* Discussion on Relationship – issue has already been added
* Discussion on FilesAnalyzed – William will add an issue to track

==SPDX Document License==
* We didn’t have a quorum to discuss completely
* Steve and Jilyane are researching the reasons for the mandatory license declaration currently in use
* Request that those who would like it changed to document the reasons
* Philippe suggested that for some use cases where there is a contract in place between the supplier and consumer, the license for the SPDX document be in the license and not the document itself
* Steve will open an issue to track

[[Category:Technical|Minutes]]
[[Category:Minutes]]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * Thomas Steenbergen
 * Brad Edmondston
 ==3.0 Model==
 * Proposed update from William
-* Came out of feedback from OMG group
+* Came out of feedback from OMG workgroup,  which looked at approach from Framing group from NTIA (see www.ntia.gov/SBOM)
 * Feedback on current model:
 ** Exclusively focused on licensing and IP
@@ Line 36: / Line 40: @@
 * Philippe suggested that for some use cases where there is a contract in place between the supplier and consumer, the license for the SPDX document be in the license and not the document itself
 * Steve will open an issue to track
   [[Category:Technical|Minutes]]
 [[Category:Minutes]]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 * Nisha Kumar
 * Philippe Ombredanne
 ==3.0 Model==

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ==SPDX Document License==
 * We didn’t have a quorum to discuss completely
-* Steve and Jilyane are researching the reasons for the mandatory license declaration currently in use
+* Steve and Jilyane are researching the reasons for the mandatory DataLicense: CC0-1.0 declaration currently in use
 * Request that those who would like it changed to document the reasons
 * Philippe suggested that for some use cases where there is a contract in place between the supplier and consumer, the license for the SPDX document be in the license and not the document itself