Gary O'Neall
Gary O'Neall
There is a related discussion issue #49 and #50 which looks like it should be resolved in 3.0. Right now I don't think we have a definitive answer, but I...
> if we capture this via snippets we may think about adding a `licenseInfoInSnippets` It makes the spec a bit more complex, but it also makes it more consistent. I...
Moving to the 3.0 milestone.
@MarkGisi Thanks for the background! Something we should take back up again. There is a related issue #124 regarding NPM packages.json using license expressions.
@kestewart Nothing has changed - as @apmccartney accurately describes, we added restrictions to the JSON schema which limited classes and properties to what was defined in the SPDX spec. This...
It looks like this was partially resolved in 2.3, but we still have the redundant expressions. Since we're past the review period for 2.3, I'm pushing this to a 3.0...
Currently, the annotations are properties of the SPDX element and therefore do not need an SPDX ID since the SPDX ID would be the ID of the enclosing element. For...
@swinslow > does this work if someone wants to provide an Annotation for an element that is defined in a separate SPDX Document? Good point - this would not be...
As raised in issue #536 - the current spec would suggest we change the JSON example to a high level array of annotations similar to how we treat relationships. Since...
@iamwillbar Just pointing out the discussion in this issue on annotating elements not included in the document as it may impact our current model discussions. TL;DR - @swinslow points out...