Gary O'Neall

Relationships, Annotations, and Reviews are required to be on a single line for tag/value - so I think we're OK there. I agree the license section should be more clearly...

@tbetker I was thinking about the mandatory fields on Relationship. You are correct in that the `RelationshipComment:` is on a separate line and the current parsing expects it to follow...

@tbetker did you mean to close the issue? Seems like a reasonable thing to document. My only concern is if we introduce an incompatibility by adding an ordering requirement in...

Moving to 3.0 milestone

@kestewart In thinking about this, it will change back to an ID in spec version 3.0 since annotations are full elements. I'm going to move this to the 3.0 milestone.

From a tooling perspective, a license expression for a declared license is commonly constructed through machine analysis of discovered licenses and inserting the appropriate `AND` and `OR`'s. If during that...

> Furthermore, I cannot see how NONE could ever be used as a placeholder for a license id in an expression: Apache-2.0 OR NONE would mean "Apache or no license...

@capfei Good issue - I don't think the current syntax supports more than one WITH. I know that the tools I wrote don't currently support this scenario. You can just...

Just adding a note that there are couple different ways to fetch the structured license data from SPDX: 1. from the git repo in JSON format https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/tree/v3.14/json 2. from the...

> One other issue: I've submitted a number of licenses now through the tool and I have no idea what "Email" is supposed to mean. @richardfontana - there is a...