Gary O'Neall
Gary O'Neall
For 1. and 2. above, suggest creating an SpdxDocument in memory "on the fly" with all of the Element(s) represented as root elements. For 3., should we assume the single...
@JPEWdev - I think your approach for the lower level language bindings is fine. The libraries I'm writing have to deal with the higher level semantics, hence the need to...
Moving this to 3.1 (assuming we choose a non-breaking change approach)
> Looks like `Relationship` has two "subclass of" arrows point to `Element`. Can we delete one of them? > > Yes - looks like it can be removed
We should merge this around the same time we update the website with the referenced documents.
Moving to 3.1 since it won't be included in the actual spec.
Thanks @jaudriga for reporting this. I did some analysis and the reasons the 2 licenses don't show up in declared is they do not match the SPDX license based on...
> Thanks for the quick reply! I just checked for my own understanding. > > The POM file I linked contains: > > ``` > https://projects.eclipse.org/license/epl-2.0 > ``` > >...
I think the issue is the `crossReference` for the `hasExtractedLicensingInfos` isn't being checked - only the licenses from the listed licenses. You could add a `licenseDeclared` configuration parameter for the...
@jaudriga my apologies, I referred to the wrong configuration parameter. The [licenseConcluded](https://spdx.github.io/spdx-maven-plugin/createSPDX-mojo.html#licenseConcluded) configuration parameter should allow you to define a license expression where you should be able to use the...