-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 580
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should license detection also return SPDX license expressions? #1217
Comments
Maybe @mnonnenmacher also has an opinion about this as we were just today discussing this in some other context. |
it makes sense to me. What I would love to see is the version of the SPDX standard that is used, so I don't have to guess :-) |
@armijnhemel good point! We can set the version of the SPDX license list in the scan headers. |
@mnonnenmacher ping? |
This is going to be useful for ClearlyDefined and @dabutvin ... so this is going into 3.1 alright at the minimum. |
This is being merged in develop and will be in v32.0 |
Today we have this:
In this later case I wonder if it could be useful to also return license expressions using SPDX license ids.
This would be eventually a new option and would be returned under its own file-level attribute.
This could also possibly apply to a companion to the
license_expression
returned withpackages
for a package manifest. Now, of the 1301 licenses that scancode knows, only 375 are referenced at SPDX, therefore there will be quite a few "LicenseRef" in this case. See #532 for this issue and #532 (comment) in particular.@sschuberth @mjherzog @DennisClark @armijnhemel Any feedback?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: