On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:32:37AM +0200, Maximilian Huber wrote:
> But since we currently only use features which were already in 2.0
> present, it is still an open question for me. Generating files by
> some older (but compatible) specification makes it easier for people
> to parse the generated
2017 5:40 AM
> > To: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org
> > Subject: [spdx-tech] Short question about downwards and upwards
> > compatibility
> >
> > Hello spdx-tech@,
> >
> > In FOSSology we generate SPDX reports which are compatible with the
> > 2.0 and t
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:31 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:54:31AM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote:
> > Of concern, there are new fields added in 2.1 that are
> > not present in 2.0 (backwards compatibility), its best
> > the file is correctly labeled.
>
> If you use the new-i
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:54:31AM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote:
> Of concern, there are new fields added in 2.1 that are
> not present in 2.0 (backwards compatibility), its best
> the file is correctly labeled.
If you use the new-in-2.1 properties [1], you need to declare 2.1.
But if you don't use t
Hi Maximilian,
If you're recognizing and generating SPDX 2.1,
its best to mark the generated file as SPDX 2.1.
If an older parser encounters the file and version number
and doesn't recognize it, its a bug on that parser.
Of concern, there are new fields added in 2.1 that are
not present in 2.
Hello spdx-tech@,
In FOSSology we generate SPDX reports which are compatible with the
2.0 and the 2.1 specification and we are now discussing, which version
to specify in the created document.
It might be a good idea to stay on version 2.0 since parsers, which
read 2.1, might probably also be abl
