Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

2019-03-13 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
Richard, Jeff: On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:32 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > Use of "LicenseRef" (not to mention something like > NOASSERTION) is a nonstarter for the use cases we are most interested > in. What we've actually done in some cases is use the nonstandard > identifiers created by nexB. A

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

2019-03-13 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
Richard: On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:32 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > This sounds appealing to me (if I'm understanding it correctly). From > Red Hat's perspective one of the great impracticalities of SPDX has > been that, after many years of SPDX's existence, its adopted > identifiers still represe

Re: [spdx-tech] An example of a super simple SPDX licenses registry, for discussion

2019-03-13 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
Kyle: On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 6:54 PM Kyle Mitchell wrote: > How will you handle name disputes? How will you deal with > complaints (to SPDX/LF) about the identifiers being used by > private parties under their assigned namespaces? > > Prior art: https://www.npmjs.com/policies/disputes Thankyou: