search

OpenChain-Project / Telco-WG

This is the OpenChain Telco Work Group
Other
13 stars 6 forks source link

[Bug] The specification should state the license. #3

Closed stephenkilbaneadi closed 2 years ago

stephenkilbaneadi commented 2 years ago

Describe the bug

The main License Compliance spec states that it is CC0-1.0 in the Introduction. We should do that for this spec, too.

shanecoughlan commented 2 years ago

Quick clarification: the license compliance spec (ISO/IEC 5230) is "licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0)."

But concur that we should fix the statement of license in the Telco spec.

@Jimmy-ahlberg checking why the spec is CC-0? It's fine, but that allows editing/forking, so we probably need to expand on the why in the intro.

shanecoughlan commented 2 years ago

This is now potentially addressed in a pull request here: https://github.com/OpenChain-Project/Telco-WG/compare/add-license-to-spec?expand=1

Jimmy-ahlberg commented 2 years ago

Yes that should be changed. I don’t know that there was a plan with that. Our meeting material was CC.0 in case that it was useful content for someone to reproduce internally I guess it carried over when we migrated into Github.. The spec was not intended as such. I guess we can change, but I’m not sure about the historical record.

From: Shane Coughlan @.> Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2022 16:11 To: OpenChain-Project/Telco-WG @.> Cc: Jimmy Ahlberg @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [OpenChain-Project/Telco-WG] [Bug] The specification should state the license. (Issue #3)

Quick clarification: the license compliance spec (ISO/IEC 5230)https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-715bd40fcb3c0aa4&q=1&e=e7ea0742-27d1-4d18-9399-4c147c5269f3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOpenChain-Project%2FLicense-Compliance-Specification%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FOfficial%2Fen%2F2.1%2Fopenchainspec-2.1.md is "licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (CC-BY-4.0)."

But concur that we should fix the statement of license in the Telco spec.

@Jimmy-ahlberghttps://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-89b392db6f41501d&q=1&e=e7ea0742-27d1-4d18-9399-4c147c5269f3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FJimmy-ahlberg checking why the spec is CC-0? It's fine, but that allows editing/forking, so we probably need to expand on the why in the intro.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-d87084febdba33a3&q=1&e=e7ea0742-27d1-4d18-9399-4c147c5269f3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOpenChain-Project%2FTelco-WG%2Fissues%2F3%23issuecomment-1302258656, or unsubscribehttps://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-dab46929d0119432&q=1&e=e7ea0742-27d1-4d18-9399-4c147c5269f3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAO34NV6VT57GXJTGSATMJBTWGPIYPANCNFSM6AAAAAARWAJ2AI. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.**@.>>

shanecoughlan commented 2 years ago

OK, will update the PR with the change. Given that the document was being informally edited and now is moving for formal (and was CC-0 and is now moving to a more fixed format), the change should be fine. The important point moving forward is that text changes should probably be limited to a couple of parties, because if we ever moved to formal standardization we would need copyright assignments around the non-public domain material.

shanecoughlan commented 2 years ago

Fixed and closing this issue.