-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 136
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
SPDX coverage from what FOSSology covers #112
Comments
A lot of these feel they would fit nicely into the profiles model in 3.0. I suggest we move this issue to the 3.0 milestone. |
Agree, I think this is more appropriate to consider as part of 3.0. |
This may be a good issue to add to the operations profile team. |
Moving to 3.1 - the target for the profiles team. |
I've commented within the sub-issues linked from here (and/or closed them) to reflect where I think these currently stand. Short version, I don't think there's anything left in here that is licensing-related that hasn't either already been addressed, or else is a "wontfix" for 3.0 and going forward. I'll leave this open to the extent that parts of it may touch on other profiles. |
Proposed (!!! I feel sorry for putting it into your issue tracker thought it would be actually helping to bring transparency) is a meta issue that shows what FOSSology covers in terms of license analysis use cases and which of the issues in this issue tracker are connected with this.
Please note also that there is a meta issue on the FOSSology side, summarising captured shortcomings of the FOSSology w.r..t the SPDX spc:
fossology/fossology#1079
FOSSology use cases
Admitted that #92 is maybe covered by the relations construct, although I am not convinced it represents a solution that as intended
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: