We (FOSSology) have discovered some of our license short names that violate
your list of allowed characters. For example, here is the output from your
verification tool when I ran it against your three sample packages from the
backoff this week:
bobg$ java -jar spdx-tools-2.0.2-jar-with-depend
..@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bob,
>> Comments inline...
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Gobeille, Robert > <mailto:bob.gobei...@hp.com>> wrote:
>> We (FOSSology project) are having a discussion about how to name dual
&
>
> thanks again for all your work,
> Jilayne
>
> SPDX Legal Team co-lead
> opensou...@jilayne.com <mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 9:14 PM, Gobeille, Robert > <mailto:bob.gobei...@hp.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks
sking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below:
>
>
>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart > <mailto:kstew...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bob,
>> Comments inline...
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Gobeille,
We (FOSSology project) are having a discussion about how to name dual licenses.
What is the SPDX policy on naming dual licenses? Here are some examples:
1. The Asterisk license is GPL-2.0 with exceptions:
http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk/trunk/LICENSE
To me, I would call this an Asteris
Looking over http://spdx.org/licenses/, we see Artistic-1.0-cl8 and
Artistic-1.0-Perl.
The cl8 points to http://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-1.0 and makes sense.
However, http://spdx.org/licenses/Artistic-1.0-Perl#licenseText points to
http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html for the licen
