Dear Karen, > We know that the licenses require that license information and notices be > retained, as Mike Dolan pointed out. (In GPL-2.0 this text is "keep intact > all the notices that refer to this License").
Indeed, the full text of the license should always been available when using SPDX License Identifiers. The suggestion (which we've now removed) to include the licenses' typical header information as well as the SPDX License Identifiers was guidance for copyright holders to declare the licensing that they released the code under. There's no suggestion from SPDX that non-copyright-holders should remove any copyright or license notices from code that they receive or redistribute, be they typical license headers or SPDX License Identifiers. Thus, the point that the discussion here started around was merely about the preference of copyright holders of how to include license notices. We used to try to influence this, but have now decided not to any longer and let copyright holders make their own decisions. The REUSE case, as well as what Warner is doing with FreeBSD, is to have a canonical license text in a particular directory in the source code, and to use only the SPDX License Identifiers in the code files themselves. This makes it less likely that unintentional license variations will be added to source code files, and to make it easier for downstream users to catalogue all the applicable licenses. All users need to do is look in a single directory - very convenient! :) I hope I've managed to clear up any confusion you have, but feel free to respond if I didn't something doesn't quite make sense. Best wishes, Sebastian -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3062): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3062 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/86580237/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
