> -----Original Message----- > From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io@qt- > project.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 6:57 PM > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Documenting 3rd party code Qt > > On quarta-feira, 20 de julho de 2016 11:13:39 PDT Kai Koehne wrote: > > I had a look at SPDX, README.Chromium, debian/copyright (btw thanks > > for the pointer!). In the end I went for a custom format, because they > > all seem to not quite fit for our use case. Anyhow, it's easy to > > extend licensescanner to generate other formats, too. > > What's missing from SPDX and have you tried to talk to them about adding > the missing information?
I'm not sure whether anything particular is missing in the standard - my best guess is we could create a syntactically valid SPDX file containing the same information that we currently have in the proposed qt_attribution.json file format. However, SPDX is a standard for "software packages" - it would probably make more sense to add an SPDX file for QtCore or even qtbase. Using a SPDX file for a single file in 3rdparty feels a bit like a misuse. Also, the tools I found to process spdx files are written in Java, which I certainly do not want to add as a build dependency. This would mean we'd write a custom parser for the subset of SPDX we'd support. In the end I concluded it's just easier to have a tailored format we have full control over, but can be used as a source for generating SPDX/debian_copyright/... files as they're needed. I'd be happy to have a discussion about this with someone interested in this. My proposal is to use the names and matching guidelines from https://spdx.org/licenses/ though. Regards Kai _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development