It would be useful for `licensecheck` to output SPDX-compliant license identifiers, so that it can be used in SPDX/CycloneDX SBOMs.
Hi Dom,
Quoting Dom Rodriguez (2025-03-13 01:18:03)
It would be useful for `licensecheck` to output SPDX-compliant license
identifiers, so that it can be used in SPDX/CycloneDX SBOMs.
Do you mean like this?:
```
licensecheck --shortname-scheme=spdx *
```
On 13.03.2025 11:01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Dom Rodriguez (2025-03-13 01:18:03)
It would be useful for `licensecheck` to output SPDX-compliant license
identifiers, so that it can be used in SPDX/CycloneDX SBOMs.
Do you mean like this?:
```
licensecheck --shortname-scheme=spdx *
```
Perfect, I missed that in the docs.
However, I note that, for example, GPLv2 licenses are reported as
`GPL-2.0`, which is deprecated by the SPDX license list[0], which
should - probably - be addressed.
I can open a different bug report and close this one if that works for
the team. I'm running `licensecheck` v3.3.9.
I'll close this for now, as those other bug reports seem to -
partially, one way or another - cover the -only/-or-later bits we need.
Quoting Dom Rodriguez (2025-03-13 14:48:21)
On 13.03.2025 11:01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Dom Rodriguez (2025-03-13 01:18:03)
It would be useful for `licensecheck` to output SPDX-compliant license
identifiers, so that it can be used in SPDX/CycloneDX SBOMs.
Do you mean like this?:
```
licensecheck --shortname-scheme=spdx *
```
Perfect, I missed that in the docs.
However, I note that, for example, GPLv2 licenses are reported as
`GPL-2.0`, which is deprecated by the SPDX license list[0], which
should - probably - be addressed.
The license fulltext itself does not cover any work, so cannot decide if
it is -only or -or-later.
I can open a different bug report and close this one if that works for
the team. I'm running `licensecheck` v3.3.9.
If you only needed what --shortname-scheme=spdx then yes, makes sense to >close this bugreport.
If that other issue you wanted to open another bugreport for is the
above about GPL-3, then please first check if covered in either of bugs >#1052259 or #1081421.
You might also be interested in bug#950363 :-)
On 26.03.2025 00:26, Dom Rodriguez wrote:
I'll close this for now, as those other bug reports seem to -
partially, one way or another - cover the -only/-or-later bits we need.
Actually, looking at the Debbugs system, which I'm not /too/ familiar
with - is there a way to close this without needing to provide a
'Version' tag for the fixed version of `licensecheck` - this was more
of a query than anything.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 481 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 15:01:10 |
Calls: | 9,540 |
Files: | 13,653 |
Messages: | 6,139,630 |