@goneall @techytushar I have written this wiki: https://github.com/tjasmith/spdx-online-tools/wiki/Registry-and-repository-of-License-List-Namespaces:-GSOC-2019 . I would like to port it to the spdx online tools repo wiki, please could you grant me that permission?
would like to port it to the spdx online tools repo wiki, please could you grant me that permission?
Same. I'm also getting Permission to spdx/spdx-online-tools.wiki.git denied when pushing the changes. I think you should have write access to the repository to be able to add a wiki page.
@tjasmith @Ugtan @abhishekspeer I (think) I added permissions for you to post to the spdx-online-tools wiki. Let me know if you have any problems. The permissions for the wikis were a bit confusing, but I think you will receive an invitation to the repo from github. After accepting, you should have access to write to the Wiki. Let me know if you have any problems.
Thanks @goneall! I’ve received an invitation to collaborate on the https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/. But I’ve worked https://github.com/spdx/tools-golang/ during my GSoC project. Could you please add me as a collaborator for that project?
Also, I’m still not able to add a new page at https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/ as well.
@tjasmith A couple suggestions on the wiki: I would add a current status to document more clearly which is complete and any work left to be done. I would also format the pull requests a sub-bullets under "Pull Request" (the current formatting makes it look like the work done is another pull request).
Hello,
I have made a public gist of my final work product report which has to be provided alongwith final evaluations.
Please have a look and provide your valuable feedback here.
I have made a public gist of my final work product report which has to be provided alongwith final evaluations.
Please have a look and provide your valuable feedback here.
@ekongobie how are you doing?
@goneall I prefer the clone. There is only one issue on my repo. @udaykor I have submitted the evaluation. Please have a look at : https://github.com/ekongobie/spdx_id_doc_gen/wiki/SPDX-Document-Generator-for-projects-using-SPDXIDs
Hello I was trying to use SPDX ids for LGPL-3.0-or-later. However I was wondering if it is correct that the LGPL text on the License List ( https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0-or-later.html ) does not also include the full text of the GPL. Should I manually download the GPL license and include that as well? The official documentation states so: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
I opened an issue about it here ( fsfe/reuse-tool#86 ) since I am using the REUSE tool, but if anyone knows anything about it I would be grateful :)
@tyrion good catch. That's something I always wondered: are both texts needed? if so why did the FSF not do it at first? and the how to does not day what to do if you use the LGPL, rather it says do this if you use the GPL. And do this extra if you also use the LGPL? this is also messy as when you have both licenses, it is never clear which one applies which is not a great think (unless the FSF want to deceive folks something that I doubt)
but I find SPDX a bit hard to understand. The REUSE tool is simpler, and mandates to download each license you use and put it inside the LICENSES folder. But if I try to add also the GPL there, it says I am non-compliant because I added a license that I am not using
Is this some issue with REUSE, or is it the SPDX spec that mandates this?
@tyrion re:
As far as I can understand, both texts are needed. You can distinguish which license is used in each file from the preamble in each file I guess
and where there are only a gpl and lgpl at the root and nothing else, the license is not clear at all and that happens.
I think the FSF did goof there IMHO
@tyrion (pardon my french)
;)
a single text for a license would have been much better , as it was before
Does anybody know why the GPL here https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/blob/master/text/GPL-3.0-or-later.txt looks formatted differenty than the official one? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
Is it intended, or should I open an issue about it?
that's unlikely intended
@tyrion note that in general, since texts @ SPDX contain possible markup and sometimes comments they are generally poorly suited to be used as reference texts
Umh, reading here ( spdx/license-list-data#32 ) it seems the text versions are generated from the HTML ones
@tyrion from the XML ones rather https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/ ... but this is a lossy process for sure.
Also: the comment for http://spdx.org/rdf/terms#algorithm still says: "Identifies the algorithm used to produce the subject Checksum. Currently, SHA-1 is the only supported algorithm. It is anticipated that other algorithms will be supported at a later time. "
Even though you now support three (and hopefully soon even more) algorithms