Open thompson-tomo opened 1 month ago
Lucene.NET is covered under a compound license. There were several separately licensed components that were bundled in Lucene that were ported from Java and then we also added some separately licensed .NET software from 3rd parties. See the additional licenses in the LICENSE.txt file.
Per the Apache License Policy, we must bundle the license file with software distributions. That being said, I don't think that fact precludes us from using an SPDX license expression, but it is going to cause us slightly more maintenance to update both the expression and the license file every time the licensing changes.
Perhaps we need to ping infra/legal about this request because I am not sure whether bypassing the license attributions with an SPDX will violate the Apache License Policy. It is pretty specific about including the attributions in the license and AFAIK there is no way to include them in an SPDX.
I suspect we could accommodate this request if:
The SPDX expression for our packages will be quite long. Does that negate the benefit of having one? In the past, I have only used an SPDX for projects that are covered under a single license because I don't know the answer to that question.
Is there an existing issue for this?
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe the problem.
By using a license url external tools can not easily analyse the license types in use
Describe the solution you'd like
The nuget package has the license expression set
Additional context
N/a