"Since this is human-created, I'm trying to minimize the number of lines.”.
In other words, you want to document some of the files in the package, but you don’t want to have to include all the files in the package as the spec currently suggests. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, then that’s indeed something we don’t currently do. "One instance of the File Information is required for each file in the software package” (First sentence in section 4 of the 2.0 spec). On 4/13/16, 1:46 PM, "Wheeler, David A" <[email protected]> wrote: >David A. Wheeler: >>>I certainly will distribute the files, and I may very well *want* to state >>>that certain files have/don't have certain licenses or exception. > >Yev Bronshteyn: >> In that case, you don’t need filesAnalyzed = false. You can set it to “true” >> or leave it out, specify the files that you’re distributing and whatever >> licensing applies. >> Are you saying you want to be able to only specify files that are exempt >> from the package-level license? > >I usually want to specify "all files in this package are under license XYZ", >but in some cases, I may want to state an exception e.g., "this file is under >license (XYZ OR ABC)". > >I don't see the value of including the filesAnalyzed tag in my use case. I'm >not doing "analysis", I am *telling* you what the answer is. Others can later >do analysis, using that and other data, if they want to. Since this is >human-created, I'm trying to minimize the number of lines. > >--- David A. Wheeler > _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
