package-url
Clarify contributing... and "governance"
Here is what I suggest:
-
add a simple DCO to the repo and document this in a CONTRIBUTING file, requesting sign off by in the good ole and time tested Linux way that I am familiar with
-
clarify that the license of the spec and test data is a dedication to the public domain (as listed in the spec alright) OR alternatively available under the CC0 for jurisdiction that do not recognize PD dedications (e.g. anybody in Germany ;) )
-
clarify that tools are preferably licensed using the MIT license and should using the DCO too. This is what the Go and Python implementations are doing already. We also use a streamlined copyright notice to avoid overloading these with dates and names
-
eventually add an AUTHORS file or authors section to the repo for reference?
@andrew @ashcrow @R2wenD2 @sschuberth this should be easy peasy to agree to this
We need a code of conduct too and I defer to @andrew on this.
License info looks good. We should have guidelines around decision making in the event of disagreement. I don't have a strong opinion on what that should be, but its better to have in place preemptively.
@R2wenD2 agreed. Do you know how to craft some simple and proper words for this? We can put it in the spec or in a CONTRIBUTING I guess?
This guide has a good overview of various types of governance as well as templates for each one.
Which model of governance do you prefer? We can put it in CONTRIBUTING or make a governance.md - either is fine :)
@pombredanne I would recommend https://www.contributor-covenant.org for code of conduct, happy to send a pr to add it if you'd like?
@andrew that would be awesome and will count as one PR for you in https://github.com/24pullrequests/24pullrequests/ ;)
@R2wenD2 I am more on the "Liberal contribution" even and especially as it can be deliciously messy at times. I could live with a BDFL way if everyone agrees to it in a liberal way first (which would disqualifies me as a BDFL in the fist place I guess). In any case, I am always with an opinion but neither opiniated nor opiniater as they said in the 1800's.
A Govenance.md would work (or a .rst if you feel like it ;) )
@jackfirth raised a valid spec licensing issue in #17 .... So should we consider switching the spec license from public domain or CC0 to use MIT everywhere?
Apache is a great license but too long for my taste for such thing. In fact any code license is a tad weird for a spec, but MIT should fit the bill OK.
We could also reuse the license of IETF spec as a prep to make this a bona fide, very official standard in the future through an RFC, but this sounds rather complicated at first :P
Given my work and tools, I should know better about licensing! Yet I am the naked cobbler's son just now, feeling as a naked fish :fish:
Input needed.
I suggest MIT for consistency through the repos ... but CC0 is also fine IMHO.
@jackfirth @sillsm I would assume that MIT is fine by you? If so please provide an explicit acknowledgement
@ashcrow @brianf @andrew and I: we are the four committers of content to date so please provide an explicit reply comment saying: I agree to the relicensing of this repo under the MIT license.
For reference this MIT license is exactly this:
Copyright (c) the purl authors
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in
the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of
the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so,
subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
@ashcrow @andrew I still need your agreement for the PD->MIT license change to move forward.
@R2wenD2 ping you mentioned you might come up with something on your side, any progress? BTW, (and I guess that we need some place to chat and post these, I presented purls at FSODEM) https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/purl/
Anyone with an objection to start a Gitter chat channel? (Gitter is FLOSS code and not a walled garden like Slack and also IRC-accessible)
I have totally dropped the ball here, sorry. I'll try to come back to it next week, I think we can have something relatively light-weight.
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:25 AM Philippe Ombredanne [email protected] wrote:
@R2wenD2 https://github.com/r2wend2 ping you mentioned you might come up with something on your side, any progress? BTW, (and I guess that we need some place to chat and post these, I presented purls at FSODEM) https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/purl/
Anyone with an objection to start a Gitter chat channel? (Gitter is FLOSS code and not a walled garden like Slack and also IRC-accessible)
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/package-url/purl-spec/issues/21#issuecomment-364346761, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEtQ4UmS8bJKOqJDoLuhXmZ99OD4qw9ks5tS-TRgaJpZM4QwyN4 .
Anyone with an objection to start a Gitter chat channel? (Gitter is FLOSS code and not a walled garden like Slack and also IRC-accessible)
No objection.
I created a chat room at https://gitter.im/package-url/Lobby I did not invite anyone though... each one will have to join directly!
The licensing and code of conduct aspects of this issue have been resolved, and I've opened #190 to cover the governance aspects.
