Gary O'Neall
Gary O'Neall
Moving to 3.1 since the text already defines the restriction - we can implement the SHACL in the next release.
> [@goneall](https://github.com/goneall) as far as I can tell, there is no change for the security team to make here, right? This is a SHACL specific issue? Correct - this is...
I think this is now done - closing
Reopening
I'll need to see the use cases to understand how the above terminology applies and how we would translate those terms to SPDX terminology. The definition of Component requiring some...
This is a rather significant changes, targeting for the 2.1 release
@quantenzitrone good point - I'm surprised we haven't run into this until now. We'll need to update the SPDX license matching guidelines first - I'll open an issue. I'm also...
Update: It looks like the SPDX legal team agrees with the proposal - the next step is to update the SPDX matching guidelines.
Agree with moving this to the conformance section. The additions need to be discussed - I'm not sure I agree with the proposed language. It's a bit complex, so having...
There have been some performance issues in the past when deleting SPDX elements, but that shouldn't impact the compare. Compare is very compute intensive, but it shouldn't be timing out....