> -----Original Message----- > From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:44 PM > To: Richard Fontana; J Lovejoy > Cc: Gary O'Neall; spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal > Subject: Re: Providing access to FSF license metadata > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:30:18PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > > By the bye, one thing I'd find useful, either inside or outside of > > SPDX, is some notion of correspondence of an FSF-approved license > with > > a counterpart OSI-approved, or SPDX-recognized, license. > > > > To illustrate, consider the MIT license. There is no MIT license > > steward; the de facto standard text (basically for historical > > reasons) is that on the OSI website, > > https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT > > I agree, and think the best way to maintain that sort of information is > with automated SPDX license matching [1]. Then, everyone with license > opinions (the OSI, FSF, etc.) publishes a list of reviewed license IDs > (using SPDX IDs or their own custom IDs, e.g. [2]): > > $ curl -s https://api.opensource.org/licenses/ | jq '[.[] | .id]' > [ > "AAL", > "AFL-3.0", > "AGPL-3.0", > … > ] > > Then for each reviewed license, they provide a way to get the metadata. > For example [3]: > > $ curl -s https://api.opensource.org/license/AAL | jq . > { > "id": "AAL", > "identifiers": [ > { > "identifier": "AAL", > "scheme": "SPDX" > }, > … > ], > … > "text": [ > { > "media_type": "text/html", > "title": "HTML", > "url": "https://opensource.org/licenses/AAL"; > } > ] > } >
Added an issue to the SPDX tools to generate the isOsiApproved flag based on the OSI provided API: https://github.com/spdx/tools/issues/111 Gary _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
