> Bill Schineller [mailto:[email protected]] > Gary and I were talking about this at lunch - yes, your use case, which is > an important one for lowering the barrier for upstream projects to declare > licenses in a standardized way - represents an 'SPDX Lite' requirement/use > case that has often come up.
I like that phrase "SPDX Lite" - I think it captures the essence. It's in some sense a "profile" of the full SPDX spec that reduces many tags from "mandatory" to "optional" for this specific use case. I certainly *would* like to be able to use the more advanced capabilities of SPDX, I just don't want to be *required* to use them. > Let's chat about it while we are all here at Collab. Love to! --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
