Hi all,

As per our discussion on our call going through updates to the online license submission tool, I was going to make an issue summarizing the proposed changes. Instead, I got inspired that I might actually be able to make a PR myself. (Not sure if Gary and Rohit will appreciate this “help” or wish I hadn’t tried!)

I realized, we had previously decided to remove the email address field. There’s an incomplete PR for that here: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/pull/379, and I attempted to do the rest here: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/pull/389

Those will need to be merged before the bigger one with the changes we discussed, which I’ve attempted here: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/pull/387

One outstanding issue we didn’t get to on our call (and captured here: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/issues/388)
- I think we can simply remove the “Standard License Header” field in the submission form, does anyone disagree with this?

And if anyone can help point to making it so the tests on these PRs don’t fail… that would be great!

Jilayne

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:40 AM J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

One outstanding issue we didn’t get to on our call (and captured here: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-online-tools/issues/388)
- I think we can simply remove the “Standard License Header” field in the submission form, does anyone disagree with this?

I think this is a good idea. The vast majority of FOSS licenses,
licenses already on the SPDX list (FOSS or otherwise), and licenses
likely to be added to the SPDX license list in the future, will not
have any sort of 'standard header', which is kind of an outmoded
concept, and as I understand it SPDX is contributing to a general
movement away from using such things by promoting the use of the
'SPDX-License-Identifier' construct.

Richard