Closed goneall closed 9 months ago
Thanks for the review @swinslow
I'll wait a couple more days to see if @recursivenomad has any comments before merging.
Thanks for holding for my input, @goneall! End of the year can be busy :)
I like it!
The technically curious side of me still feels that linking to a source for the specific text of each license (such as the XML) in a footnote might be useful just in case there are edge cases in the future where a user wishes to clarify something about the technical definition which is not captured on this page - but I acknowledge that that is future-proofing beyond the scope of the the original issue, and this PR certainly does resolve #165!
So if you're good with what's noted above, then it looks good to me to resolve 👍
Thanks @recursivenomad for the review.
The technically curious side of me still feels that linking to a source for the specific text of each license (https://github.com/spdx/LicenseListPublisher/issues/165#issuecomment-1861673084) in a footnote might be useful just in case there are edge cases in the future where a user wishes to clarify something about the technical definition which is not captured on this page
I agree - it's just more technical work since it would involve changes to both the template and several Java files in the back end to pass through the template file (although one could kind of hack the file name based on the license name).
I'll go ahead and merge this. If anyone is interested in creating a separate pull request to add the link to the XML file, that would be great.
Fixes #165
Here's a screenshot of the current implementation: