Peter Monks

@douglasclarke this was fixed in PR #249, which is merged but awaiting release.

Just a head's up that [this license list XML issue](https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2568) will also cause matching of (recent) GPL-2.0 texts to fail, but not because of anything wrong in `Spdx-Java-Library`. I only...

It appears the same issue exists in the (old) LGPL variants too: * [Canonical `LGPL-2.0` text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.txt) vs [`LGPL-2.0-only` SPDX template](https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/LGPL-2.0-only.xml#L40-L45) and [`LGPL-2.0-or-later` SPDX template](https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/LGPL-2.0-or-later.xml#L26-L31) * [Canonical `LGPL-2.1` text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt) vs [`LGPL-2.1-only`...

I don't know what the next steps are for this issue - perhaps it could be reassigned to someone who does (or unassigned if that's not clear)? I'm unable to...

@goneall not sure if I'm jumping the gun, but I reran these tests with license list v3.27.0 and Spdx-Java-Library v2.0.1 and this issue is still occurring. Does it need a...

> IMHO there is no such thing as a single canonical license text. The definition of "canonical" I'm using here is "the current license text published by the license author"....

I'm pretty sure this is a duplicate of #234.

This may be related to https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2704, if that change hasn't been published yet. This may also be related to https://github.com/spdx/Spdx-Java-Library/issues/230 and https://github.com/spdx/Spdx-Java-Library/issues/233.

Just confirming that this issue still exists in version 2.0.1 of Spdx-Java-Library.

@bact I'd be tempted to just find a license popularity distribution published by someone else (e.g. like the OSI example I linked originally). I think figuring this out is harder...