+1 to ISO8601
-Original Message-
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Mark D. Baushke
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:10 AM
To: Zavras, Alexios
Cc: 'SPDX-legal'
Subject: Re: 3.1 release
Alexios makes a good
Alexios makes a good point.
An alternative would be to use an ISO 8601 to express time.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
Version: 3.0 published on 2017-12-28
Version: 3.0 of 2017-12-28
I will also note that if you do no like the International Standard
Organization's view of time, you
-Original Message-
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of g...@sourceauditor.com
Sent: Saturday, 24 March, 2018 00:44
To: 'Philippe Ombredanne'
Cc: 'SPDX-legal'
Subject: RE: 3.1 release
Thanks Phillippe -
>
Thanks Phillippe -
> So may be one small thing that would go a very long way would be to:
>
> 1. create a page that has links to the older versions of the LL page 2. link
> this "archives" page from the current LL version 3. link the previous version
> too 4. as a bonus possibly link the preview
Gary,
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM, wrote:
> It turns out we do maintain archived license lists, it just isn't very
> well documented or publicized.
>
> There are also some formatting issues since older versions reference
> some content which either isn't included in the archive or is not
> l
SPDX legal distribution list.
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org boun...@lists.spdx.org> On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 2:14 PM
> To: J Lovejoy
> Cc: SPDX-legal
> Subject: Re: 3.1 release
>
>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:22 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
> I’m trying to get things nailed down for Gary to do the 3.1 release by end
> of next week.
> A few outstanding things that could go either way (resolved now via email
> and included / or pushed to 3.2) - can I please get some input on these:
On
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:28:57PM -0400, Steve Winslow wrote:
> Apologies for any confusion from submitting as a separate PR, I'm
> not sure how to modify or add commits to the existing PR at #551...
You can stack your commits on top of the original PR's branch and then
set that branch as the bas
I've submitted a new PR (#625,
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/625) to include the test
text, and to fix the filename to mirror the licenseID in the XML file.
Apologies for any confusion from submitting as a separate PR, I'm not sure
how to modify or add commits to the existing PR at
Hi Jilayne, I'm looking at #551 now (OpenJDK exception). It looks like the
test is failing now because there isn't a test text file present. I'm going
to see if I can prepare a test text file and add it so that this will pass.
Thanks,
Steve
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:22 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Hi
10 matches
Mail list logo
