From: Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list <bug-gnulib@gnu.org>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org
Subject: Re: put appropriate license notices in source files
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:13:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1hem17s.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210604202552.52xlrdzdwpebnrdi@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:25:52 -0500")
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1101 bytes --]
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:
> Speaking of tools, should we include SPDX tags alongside the full text
> of all our licenses, as that is yet another thing that aids
> license-checking tools?
>
> https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/appendix-V-using-SPDX-short-identifiers-in-source-files/
I'm not a big fan of doing that -- to me it is yet another way we patch
source code to solve external tooling problems, and this tool is not
even used for technical purposes. I believe we've seen that over time
that is a bad approach, even if a good case can be made for each
improvement (like this).
Another problem is that SPDX introduce the possibility of mismatch
between the license mentioned by a SPDX tag and the license boiler plate
(which is GNU policy and standard legal behaviour). Given that we
already have some of that complexity in gnulib ('License:' clause in
modules file), I'm not sure I would want to make the situation even more
complex.
OTOH, I don't think there needs to be a firm catch-all rule on this, if
someone wants to include and maintain SPDX tags in some files.
/Simon
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-07 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-04 20:03 put appropriate license notices in source files Bruno Haible
2021-06-04 20:25 ` Eric Blake
2021-06-04 20:36 ` Paul Eggert
2021-06-04 21:02 ` Bruno Haible
2021-06-07 10:13 ` Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87r1hem17s.fsf@latte.josefsson.org \
--to=bug-gnulib@gnu.org \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=simon@josefsson.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).