Steve Winslow

@goneall I tend to agree, since the JSON and YAML formats were introduced in 2.2, a change here would be a breaking change and would make 2.2 JSON / YAML...

Just commented on similar topic in https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/49#issuecomment-652745365: Reviewing these older issues, I don't see a benefit to adding NOASSERTION into the license expression syntax. It is already defined with a...

Thanks @goneall -- I just commented in the other thread ([here](https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/49#issuecomment-654371237)) but just to close the loop here too, I'm convinced that the use case you described is worth supporting....

I'm in favor of this. Agree that there should be a clearly documented way to create custom exception texts. I assume — consistent with your milestone tagging :) — that...

Hi @tofay, good thoughts and good questions. I think this is interesting, and tend to agree that items 1 and particularly 2 from your list are likely to be the...

Hi @dineshr93, no, `A;B` is not a valid SPDX license expression. The permitted operators for joining two licenses are `AND`, `OR`, and parentheses, and `WITH` for use with license exceptions....

I'm inclined to say that this is (and should be) outside SPDX's scope. From the SPDX spec: > 1.5 What is not covered in the specification? > . . ....

Thank you for this draft @yoshi-i! I will take a closer look, but one preliminary comment I have is that I would suggest limiting it to describing the supplier's "intended...

Hi @yoshi-i, thanks very much for the responses to my earlier comments. As I mentioned on the spdx-tech mailing list, my main objective for this was to make sure that...

If you have some concrete examples of e.g. what the fields would look like in practice, for these use cases, that would be helpful to see. I might not be...