Issue *7. Publish license reference numbers* - The license database <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/blob/master/json/licenses.json> includes the referenceNumber for each licenseId, but the number column is missing from the license web page <https://spdx.org/licenses/>. Make the number for each listed license visible as ISO 3166 does for each listed country code <https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/country_code_list.htm>.
On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 2:46 PM Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> wrote: > Greeting Jilayne, SPDX Legal and SPDX tech teams, > > > > I’ll create a meeting invite early next week to continue the namespace > discussions. > > > > It will be a separate meeting from the tech call since we have quite a bit > to discuss for 3.0 and I feel we’ve been starving the 3.0 discussions a bit > for the 2.3 issues over the past couple weeks. > > > > I’ll be checking with those most active on the namespace discussion > through the meetings, emails, and Github issues to find an available time. > > > > If this is an important issue for you and you haven’t heard from me, just > drop me an email (no need to cc the tech and/or legal teams) and I’ll > include you on the available time poll. > > > > Thanks, > Gary > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On Behalf > Of *J Lovejoy > *Sent:* Thursday, May 26, 2022 1:14 PM > *To:* SPDX-legal <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: list of license related issues > > > > Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, > > > > Given that the tech team spent most of the Tuesday meeting discussing the > namespace proposal and we spent the entire legal team doing the same, I’m > going to simply answer my own question as to priority: > > > > *Coming to a final proposal for the namespace issue should be the first > priority for both the legal and tech team for (best case scenario) > inclusion in v2.3.* > > > > If the 2.3 inclusion ends up being a first step with later items TBD, > then there should be a specific plan included owners of when and how those > TBD items will be addressed. > > > > Given the discussion on this topic has been spread across Github, mailing > list, and over time and also seems to diverge in terms of what is the > problem that is trying to solve - I’m putting together a Google doc to lay > out a more structured approach and where we can have all comments in one > place. Link to come later today. > > > > We also probably ought to aim on using the upcoming tech call as a joint > call with the legal team to discuss, so we don’t delay on this any more. > (In the future, let’s try to remember to come together for these > discussions, rather than both teams have separate but similar discussions, > as that is not efficient use of time.) > > > > Can someone create an invite for that to send to the legal team? > > > > Everything else on the list below can (and will have to) wait for a later > release. > > > > Thanks, > > Jilayne > > > > On May 26, 2022, at 9:16 AM, J Lovejoy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi SPDX legal and tech teams, > > I was trying to get my head around any and all issues/PRs/topics that are > license related. Please let me know if I've missed anything on the list > below! > > Given the pending 2.3 release, it feels like a bunch of stuff is > attempting to get shoe-horned into the release, which is not always a good > idea. Also given the tech team spent some time discussing the namespace > proposal on Tuesday and the legal is set to discuss it this morning, I > think we ought to prioritize what we want to work on for 2.3 versus what > can be pushed out to 3.0. We can't do everything and rushing never yields > a good result. > > I have attempted to make a list below and put in order of priority with my > thoughts as to why: > > *1. License namespaces: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/681 > <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/681>* > This stems from a proposal from some time ago, and has been waiting to be > finalized for awhile as well. I fear that we are getting a bit off piste > from the original proposal (Mark Atwood - can you please weigh in here and > re-center us!?!) but we should try to prioritize closing this out. > > > *2. Update Matching Guidelines: (no PR yet, I'm working this in a Google > doc first)*This is may not be on anyone's radar (and has definitely > fallen off the to-do list a few time), but they are woefully out-of-date so > I'm moving this up to visibility and priority! I have begun working on a > "draft" of edits in a Google doc, to then turn into a PR. Will share soon. > > *3. Snippets and SPDX-License-Identifier tags: > https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/464 > <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/464>* > This seems like something that may be better discussed in the context of > 3.0 ? > > *4. Adding NONE to the License Expression syntax: > https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec>* > This has been around for awhile. Given NONE and NOASSERTION are already > defined (if people would read said definitions...) in the Spec, I see this > as a potentially simply lift and move in terms of where they "live". That > being said, it's still a fair amoutn of work ensuring the wording in > several places is right. It also opens up the pandora's box in that the > Annex for license expressions is in need of an overall update. For these > reasons, this seems like something better suited to be coupled with that > effort. That's my gut at this point. > > *5. Add profile for multiple SPDX files with short licensing/copyright > info: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/502 > <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/502>* > This seems like a lighter version of what will be the licensing profile in > 3.0. As such, maybe we should expend our energy on 3.0 and the profiles, > see where that ends up. And then go back to this? > > *6. Specify which licenses are compatible with the "+" operator: > https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/689#issuecomment-1135966938 > <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/689#issuecomment-1135966938>* > Admittedly, I have not read through this yet, but from the title alone it > may even be a non-issue, so putting it at bottom of list > > > Thanks, > Jilayne > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4537): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4537 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/91356638/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
