Hi Kyle,
You raise some specific points that highlight some things we have worked
on recently, so responding here inline.
Jilayne
On 1/24/23 4:13 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
If distros are seeing packaged-but-not-identified licenses
in numbers to the point of pain, I'd suggest addressing that
Thanks for this write-up, Richard.
Having spent an exorbitant amount of my time over the years of my
involvement in SPDX trying to politely say "no" to licenses for the
reasons you describe below, I cannot begin to express how much I would
welcome a way to make that easier and quicker.
+1 to Richard!
-Original Message-
From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of
Richard Fontana
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:30 PM
To: SPDX-legal
Subject: SPDX should take a stronger stance against vanity/promotional licenses
As I've been following the issue queue for
If distros are seeing packaged-but-not-identified licenses
in numbers to the point of pain, I'd suggest addressing that
pain directly. Perhaps by laying a wider pipe from distros'
workflows to SPDX's.
>From personal experience, the biggest blocks might actually
be the XML schema and just reading
As I've been following the issue queue for
github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues over the past several months,
it seems to me that you get a significant number of license
submissions like this latest one:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1790
The pattern is, someone has drafted
