SMLNJ: add markup for template #1441

[johnmhoran]

This modifies the markup for SMLNJ to permit copyright holders other than those
named in the SMLNJ license to use the license.

Signed-off-by: John M. Horan [email protected]

[swinslow]

Hi @johnmhoran, I left a comment about the failing test here at #1441 (comment) -- take a look and see what you think.

[johnmhoran]

Thanks @swinslow -- I replied with a comment in the issue and made the change you suggested. If not already documented, we might want to document this error and process, and maybe even tackle it when a duplicate/deprecation is initially created?

[goneall]

@johnmhoran Please add ,"Duplicates licenses: SMLNJ-NJ, StandardML" to the expected warnings file to cover a possible case where the files are checked in the reverse order.

I agree we should document this. It looks like the right place to add it is the new-license-workflow.md file.

[goneall]

If not already documented, we might want to document this error and process, and maybe even tackle it when a duplicate/deprecation is initially created?

I'll work on a PR to the new-license-workflow this morning

[johnmhoran]

Thank you @goneall . One question -- I don't follow the syntax -- do you perhaps mean ,"Duplicates licenses: StandardML-NJ, SMLNJ" rather than ,"Duplicates licenses: SMLNJ-NJ, StandardML"?

Also, since this is not a new license but an edit to an existing one, I'd have thought this error would have been thrown, and resolved, when the most recent of the 2 was first added?

[goneall]

I added a PR #1447 to document the duplicate licenses

[goneall]

@johnmhoran

do you perhaps mean ,"Duplicates licenses: StandardML-NJ, SMLNJ" rather than ,"Duplicates licenses: SMLNJ-NJ, StandardML"

In addition to, not rather than. The order in which the licenses are checked isn't deterministic, so we need to add both directions in the expected warnings.

Also, since this is not a new license but an edit to an existing one, I'd have thought this error would have been thrown, and resolved, when the most recent of the 2 was first added?

I haven't verified it, but my guess is that the additional markup added caused the match. The CI/CD runs a license matching per the matching guidelines including processing the alt/optional tags.

[johnmhoran]

@goneall I'm confused re the syntax. If I understand correctly, the 2 identifiers are SMLNJ and StandardML-NJ. What are SMLNJ-NJ and StandardML? The latter are not reversing the order of the files but rather are changing the identifiers themselves.

[goneall]

Just FYI - there is an issue to enhance the warnings processing to make it a bit easier to maintain: spdx/LicenseListPublisher#117

Looking for volunteers to implement.

[goneall]

I'm confused re the syntax. If I understand correctly, the 2 identifiers are SMLNJ and StandardML-NJ. What are SMLNJ-NJ and StandardML? The latter are not reversing the order of the files but rather are changing the identifiers themselves.

Oops - that was a typo. Just reverse the order.

[goneall]

I just added an issue for the LicenseListPublisher to ignore duplicates if one or both of the licenses are marked as deprecated. It would be an easy fix - I just want to check with @jlovejoy and @swinslow to make sure they agree this is a good idea.

[johnmhoran]

Thanks @goneall -- just added the reverse-order warning as discussed.

[goneall]

Thanks @johnmhoran - looks good

[swinslow]

Hi @johnmhoran, because the expected-warnings file had changed in parallel in another PR, there was a conflict with this PR. I've resolved that now and the tests are re-running -- assuming they pass, this should be all good to go!