Hi Jilayne, I'm looking at #551 now (OpenJDK exception). It looks like the test is failing now because there isn't a test text file present. I'm going to see if I can prepare a test text file and add it so that this will pass.

Thanks,

Steve

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:22 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

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 - 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 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 - 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 - have not discussed but came up on mailing list awhile ago… 

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
opensource@...

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

--

Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Cell: +1.202.641.3047  Skype: 12026413047

swinslow@...