Hi all, 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:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/551 <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/551> - OpenJDK exception - need to get this in here, but I just updated the version number as per Wayne’s response and now test failed. Also, I”m not sure that the first and last paragraph are really part of the exception http://openjdk.java.net/legal/assembly-exception.html <http://openjdk.java.net/legal/assembly-exception.html> or should they be optional? Seems like references in actual source files just refer to that page, instead of including the exception text itself? https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619 <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/619> - new license, discussed on call today and inclination to add, but did not have time to resolve name. https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/616 <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/616> - have not discussed but came up on mailing list awhile ago… https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618 <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/618> - from mailing list - two issues here: but updating the full names is the non-controversial part we could theoretically do for 3.1 - thoughts? I have also marked a handful of Issues and PRs that seem to have been hanging around for awhile as milestone for 3.2 - let’s try to focus on clearing these on the next call or two. Thanks, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
