I wasn't at the SPDX meetings at LinuxCon last month, but multiple people approached me at the conference to ask my opinion on the issue, with regard to file-by-file license notice inventory, if I felt the text: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER
would be adequate. I'm told that dmg suggested that it'd be better to say something like: "License of this file is: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER" and while I agreed with dmg, but I further suggested: "License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER" would be adequate. However, I don't see anything about this documented in these minutes: Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 14:37 (EDT) on Thursday: > http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-25 I am posting about this now because I may be about to make a bombing-run patch to one of Conservancy's member projects to add a license notice to each file, and I'd be happy use that format if it's going to be an official recommendation of the SPDX project. However, I will have to register my complaint again that GPL-2.0 is a *horrible* identifier for GPLv2-only, mainly because of how GPLv2ยง9 works. Saying "GPL-2.0" to refer to GPLv2-only is misleading and confusing and should be corrected. This wasn't a major issue when the identifiers were only used by SPDX experts, but if you really are proposing that projects use the identifiers *in their code* then the identifiers *need* to stand on their own and be accurate. What is your plan to solve that problem? -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
