You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
See also https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/RELEASE-NOTES.md?plain=1#L55, this seems to be included to align with SPDX 3.0 requirements, but there is not SPDX 3.0 stable release yet and even after a SPDX 3.0 release there can be tools which still use the SPDX 2.3 models but choose to use the newer SPDX License List versions.
This is weird because:
There is no release at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/releases/ which actually uses the patch version, so why introduce it which introduces extra work in the tool here and also tools downstream?
Why not update also the tool for this version after, there has been two SPDX License List releases with this patch version already.
This means in scancode-toolkit we would not be able to show SPDX License List versions correctly (we have to skip the patch number) unless the tool is updated accordingly. Refer: aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit#3897
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In SPDX models
CreationInfo
class we havelicense_list_version: Optional[Version] = None
and in theVersion
class we only have support for Major and Minor version numbers but since SPDX License List version3.24.0
there are also patch versions used:See also https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/RELEASE-NOTES.md?plain=1#L55, this seems to be included
to align with SPDX 3.0 requirements
, but there is not SPDX 3.0 stable release yet and even after a SPDX 3.0 release there can be tools which still use the SPDX 2.3 models but choose to use the newer SPDX License List versions.This is weird because:
This means in
scancode-toolkit
we would not be able to show SPDX License List versions correctly (we have to skip the patch number) unless the tool is updated accordingly. Refer: aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit#3897The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: