Bradley, I will let the legal tam address your concern regarding GPL-2.0 as an identifier.
As for the tagging in a file for the license you are correct that nothing has been written down as of yet. There has been some discussion of this by many people and it was even a topic of discussion on the tech team call today. I believe the basic proposal (largely pushed by me I think) was to take what was done by U-boot and start with that as a basis for something that could then be standardized on and expanded later. You can see an example here: http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=post/post.c;h=4af5355fa5a20f9c2e763f37b269bea38d43e8ea;hb=6612ab33956ae09c5ba2fde9c1540b519625ba37 (this was random file I picked so I'm not trying to imply anything with the 2.0+ :) ). The idea is that there would be a write up on this and how to apply it. That said, most people think this needs to be vetted a bit more which is fair and I know Windriver presented a talk at I believe the last CollabSummit on using meta tagging of this nature and it was a bit more complete. If I remember from the conversations at Linuxcon we were going to talk to the various foundations (FSF, your conservancy, Apache, Eclipse, etc.) and get their thoughts as well. I know on the tech team call there were discussions as to whether this was enough as well and the legal team on SPDX may have some opinions. At some point we want this to be an official recommendation but it looks like we have more socializing to do on the subject to be sure everyone's concerns are addressed and there is a consensus and that the right approach is taken. By the way, I'm happy to hear that you would something suggested by SPDX in this regard. In summary, I would say stay tuned and feel free to join in the conversation. Jack -----Original Message----- From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Bradley M. Kuhn Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:44 PM To: SPDX-legal Cc: spdx-t...@spdx.org Subject: License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER 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 _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
