W. Trevor King

This seems like it's already addressed (since SPDX 2.0) via annotations, which, in tag/value form, [allow external references][1]. The current RDF/XML spec still needs to be updated to allow similar...

Having an inline table of licenses is fine (although I'd prefer it be autogenerated, see the implementation in #10). However, there's *lots* of important information in the license repo that...

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:28:36PM -0700, goneall wrote: > @wking I tend to separate out the internal fields used by the legal > team in the creating and...

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 09:36:02PM +0000, goneall wrote: > Agree in principle, but from a practical point of view we may need > to maintain the FSF information...

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 09:51:08PM +0000, d❤vid wrote: > Will there be advice given for other parties to indicate that they > "approve" a license (without adding overhead...

> ...which suggests that "DFSG approved" may not make sense / be helpful as a license flag. I'll update with any definitive response from the mailing list. So licenses can...

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 05:58:18PM +0000, goneall wrote: > Reason for this approach: Some organizations to not maintain the > license texts for all licenses. Some are just...

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 06:39:58PM +0000, goneall wrote: > I would prefer not to take on the responsibility of identifying the > mapping. Suggest we only allow: >...

> The Code for the left border at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html defines five properties... You can get these now from https://github.com/wking/fsf-api. But having the FSF pulling data about its own opinions from...

Cross linking: * An old [spdx Bugzilla issue][1] with ABNF discussion. * jslicense/spdx-expression-parse.js#20 with ABNF discussion. [1]: https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1334