Sorry, I thought you’d have seen it already. My fault. Here’s the link: http://docs.google.com/document/d/112x3s3g1Qg2tj8bjvIPsqIBlWUp3Sob37cvAx2eiS6U/edit
On 4/13/16, 11:41 AM, "Wheeler, David A" <[email protected]> wrote: >Yev Bronshteyn: >> This is exactly the point of the filesAnalyzed attribute. > >Ah! *Now* I understand your point. Good to know. Is there a URL for the >current SDPX draft? > >So would the text below be a valid LICENCE.spdx file, for someone trying to >declare that "spdx-tutorial" was declared to be licensed as "CC-BY-3.0+" by >the package originator? Please note that the example below is already >excessively long & complex. For example, information like "PackageName" is >duplicative (this would be embedded in the project, which already knows its >name). I'm seriously thinking about dropping "Creator" (who cares?) and >DataLicense (it's so short and structured that it's improbable anyone could >enforce rights on it anyway). Using XML is a complete non-starter for this >use case. > >--- David A. Wheeler > >=========================== > > >SPDXVersion: SPDX-2.0 >DataLicense: CC0-1.0 >Creator: David A. Wheeler >PackageName: spdx-tutorial >PackageOriginator: David A. Wheeler >PackageHomePage: https://github.com/david-a-wheeler/spdx-tutorial >PackageLicenseDeclared: CC-BY-3.0+ >FilesAnalyzed: false > _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
