Eric Blake <[email protected]> writes: > Speaking of tools, should we include SPDX tags alongside the full text > of all our licenses, as that is yet another thing that aids > license-checking tools? > > https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/appendix-V-using-SPDX-short-identifiers-in-source-files/
I'm not a big fan of doing that -- to me it is yet another way we patch
source code to solve external tooling problems, and this tool is not
even used for technical purposes. I believe we've seen that over time
that is a bad approach, even if a good case can be made for each
improvement (like this).
Another problem is that SPDX introduce the possibility of mismatch
between the license mentioned by a SPDX tag and the license boiler plate
(which is GNU policy and standard legal behaviour). Given that we
already have some of that complexity in gnulib ('License:' clause in
modules file), I'm not sure I would want to make the situation even more
complex.
OTOH, I don't think there needs to be a firm catch-all rule on this, if
someone wants to include and maintain SPDX tags in some files.
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
