Skip to content

Conversation

@jopejoe1
Copy link
Contributor

@jopejoe1 jopejoe1 commented Oct 9, 2025

Fixes #2827

@jlovejoy
Copy link
Member

@jopejoe1 - did you copy all the existing markup from MIT in the xml file? It looks like it

We don't usually do this. Although, its sort of begs the question of whether we ought to consider it. Generally, we don't add markup, unless variations are actually found, rather than being pre-emptive. Not sure if that may be the case with this variant??

@swinslow - thoughts on this scenario?

@jlovejoy jlovejoy added this to the 3.28.0 milestone Oct 12, 2025
@jopejoe1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Indeed, I just copied the MIT license markup and then modified it to match this license.

@jlovejoy
Copy link
Member

Thanks @jopejoe1 for the update and sorry I missed it!

Copy link
Member

@swinslow swinslow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, merging now

@swinslow swinslow merged commit 8cda2eb into spdx:main Nov 13, 2025
2 checks passed
@jopejoe1 jopejoe1 deleted the mit-stk branch November 13, 2025 17:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

New license request: MIT-STK [SPDX-Online-Tools]

3 participants