Thank you both very much - AdditionRef looks like exactly what I was after, not to mention a great solution for this previously missing capability!
Much appreciated! Peter On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 6:48 AM Steve Winslow <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard is correct. As part of the discussions of the Change Proposal on > this topic earlier this year, in SPDX 3.0 and going forward, `AdditionRef-` > is the agreed-upon prefix to use for custom license additions. > > These are intended to be used for additional text which is appended to a > license, but which is not itself a standalone license. It might be a true > “exception” / additional permission, or could be any other sort of > additional text (such as an additional restriction). > > More details are currently available at [1] and [2]. > > I presume this will not be backported into SPDX 2.3, since that would be a > substantive change. For SPDX 3.0 I believe the pending question is around > how the License Expression Syntax annex [3] and other ancillary materials > will be ported into the SPDX 3.0 repos. > > Best, > Steve > > > [1] > https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/4#issuecomment-1526155230 > [2] > https://github.com/spdx/change-proposal/issues/4#issuecomment-1536426018 > (though > the links in this comment are no longer valid due to subsequent refactoring > of the draft spdx-3-model repo) > [3] https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/ > > On Sep 24, 2023, at 11:05 PM, Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: > > SPDX 3.0 will (if I understand the situation correctly) support an > `AdditionRef-` construct - see: > https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/153 > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 9:29 PM Peter Monks <[email protected]> wrote: > > > G'day everyone, > > I developed an SPDX expression parser, based on the ABNF grammar in annex > D of version 2.3 of the SPDX specification, and I recently came across an > unusual case that gave me pause. Basically someone had put a LicenseRef in > the exception-identifier position: > > GPL-3.0-or-later WITH LicenseRef-Additional-Permission > > Now clearly this is not a valid expression according to the ABNF, but I > wondered if perhaps it, or something like it, should be, or (alternatively) > if there's a good reason it's not allowed? > > Thanks in advance for any insights, > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1772): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1772 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/101566951/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/leave/2655439/21656/1698928721/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
