Re: [spdx-tech] Short question about downwards and upwards compatibility

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:31 AM, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:54:31AM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote: > > Of concern, there are new fields added in 2.1 that are > > not present in 2.0 (backwards compatibility), its best > > the file is correctly labeled. > >

Re: [spdx-tech] Short question about downwards and upwards compatibility

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:54:31AM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote: > Of concern, there are new fields added in 2.1 that are > not present in 2.0 (backwards compatibility), its best > the file is correctly labeled. If you use the new-in-2.1 properties [1], you need to declare 2.1. But if you don't use

Re: [spdx-tech] Short question about downwards and upwards compatibility

Hi Maximilian, If you're recognizing and generating SPDX 2.1, its best to mark the generated file as SPDX 2.1. If an older parser encounters the file and version number and doesn't recognize it, its a bug on that parser. Of concern, there are new fields added in 2.1 that are not present in