Gary O'Neall

> The benefit for me is that when we alter the markup of the existing license - especially when we alter ``, then we can accidentally break the matching of...

Although I agree with the points made about the similarity in the classes and perhaps we should have chosen a different name, the `cdxProperty` is only used for compatibility and...

Discussed on the 9 Dec 2025 Tech call: - No reservations about merging into the develop branch - Don't want to loose the formatting / typographical changes suggested by @bact...

> At least as I understand it, `AdditionRef-` would never be used by SPDX in its license identifier/exception lists. There is a question here though whether this could qualify for...

@zvr - I know we've discussed this in the past - let me know if you're open to re-discussing. We'll need to do a namespace change for the next version,...

Please note the comments in https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/1157 which support removing the versions from the URIs.

I'll add a couple opinions to the discussion on versions. Since we have to update the links and IRIs for 3.0.2 and 3.1-RC1, it would be great to decide on...

@swinslow - I'll take a look this week. It could also be a bug in the license compare software.

I've narrowed down the problem - but a solution would be somewhat difficult. The problem is with the `` characters before and after the match. It looks like the tokenizer...

This has been fixed in https://github.com/spdx/spdx-java-core/pull/31 I'm working on new releases of the library and publisher. Once we update the versions including the license list publisher version used in the...