On Mittwoch, 14. Mai 2025 21:05:37 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit Nicolas Fella wrote: > Am 13.05.25 um 17:22 schrieb Volker Krause: > > On Montag, 12. Mai 2025 11:26:41 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit Sune Vuorela > > > > wrote: > >> On 2025-05-11, Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> wrote: > >>> Please work on fixing them, otherwise I will remove the failing CI jobs > >>> on > >>> their 4th failing week, it is very important that CI is passing for > >>> multiple reasons. > >>> > >>> Bad news: 1 repository is still failing > >>> > >>> krunner - 2ND WEEK > >>> > >>> * https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/krunner/-/pipelines/944055 > >>> > >>> * reuse fails > >> > >> https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/krunner/-/commit/55d6f117fc9279e202ce08 > >> ed5 b73c64ea3f261ae > >> > >> It is this one pushed without CI that broke it. > >> It is not hard to fix is one knows how Nicolas intends to license those > >> files? > > > > And as said on Matrix already, this isn't limited to KRunner, we'd ideally > > get the missing SPDX markers added to the qdoc files in all of KF, as > > those are likely going to be copy/pasted to more repos (including > > REUSE-compliant ones). > That raises the question of what license do we want them to have? > > Our Licensing Policy says "Documentation must be licensed under the > CC-BY-SA-4.0 or compatible licence". Does a qdocconf file qualify as > documentation (it only contains configuration, no actual documentation > words)? Probably close enough.
That works, although that part of the policy mostly refers to (separate) user documentation I think. As for API documentation the vast majority of content is under the license of the source code already anyway, so for the .qdoc files that might be anther option, to keep things consistent? For the the .qdocconf files, my gut feeling would be treat them as build system files.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
