LICENSE ID I think I'm on the same page as Daniel. From "SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT" someone ignorant of SPDX can infer/guess at the meaning, but you can imagine one liners (like Bradley's suggestion "License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER") that would be more explicit from a human perspective and equally easy for a machine to recognize.
On the GENIVI Alliance License Review list, there's been some discussion about the SPDX license tag (at my prompting). It led to a comparison with the DEP5 format which is different, in addition to a slight difference in the short names. (for the most part they are compatible but they don't like decimal places in short names (eg they go with GPL-2 rather than GPL-2.0). Thoughts on if/how to resolve with DEP5? It seems like a legit concern from GENIVI...what are they to do, faced with two ways of expressing the same thing? LICENSE TEXT IN FILE We probably need to agree on the group's position as it should probably be addressed in the best practices doc. I don't think we would ever say, don't include license text. It seems to me we should be somewhere between agnostic and encouraging, although our main focus is on getting the meta-tag in there whether or no the copyright holder chooses to include license text. CHANGING THE LICENSE LIST It should, like amending the constitution be rare, but possible. To me the most important thing (even with list versioning) that identifier A0 only point to a unique page B0. It would be OK to change A0 to A1 and and have A1 also point to B0, but it would not be OK for A0 to point to B0 and B1. I hope this makes sense. PROCESS Lastly...everyone OK with this being on all 3 team lists. It does cut across, but I don't want people to feel spammed. (I would not be in favor of doing this on the GENERAL MEETING list; as we have always positioned that list as having light traffic and suitable for folks with only casual interest) On 10/3/13 10:49 PM, "D M German" <d...@uvic.ca> wrote: > > Wheeler, David A twisted the bytes to say: > > > David> From a programmer's perspective I think the "cryptic" approach is >FAR > David> superior. There are lots of tools that can quickly examine files >and > David> return text with the pattern "SPDX-License-Identifier: ", and >other > David> tools that can trivially process the stuff after it. The above > David> alternative is more work to process, and humans don't like >unnecessary > David> work :-). > > David> If you want more boilerplate with the goal of enforceability, you > David> might try a format that's trivial to process, e.g.: > > David> SPDX-License-Notice: This file is licensed under the following >license(s): > David> SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT > David> SPDX-License-More-Information: http://wiki.spdx.org/ > >I like this idea. > >My point is not about being cryptic or not, but being able to convey >what the intention is to people who don't know anything about >SPDX. There needs to be a way that if somebody opens the file, they know >that that SPDX-License-Identifier means, and that it is an intention to >license the file under that license. > >Now regarding the immutability of the SPDX license list, one way to deal >with it is to version the list, but then the version of the list would >have to be included in the file that is referring to the license. > >--dmg > > > >-- >Daniel M. German "A coin symbolizes our free will" > El ZahÃr, Jorge Luis Borges >http://turingmachine.org/ >http://silvernegative.com/ >dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca >replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . > > >_______________________________________________ >Spdx-biz mailing list >spdx-...@lists.spdx.org >https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-biz _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
