On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:42:29PM +0100, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 08:22:59PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:37:43PM +0100, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote:
> > > Some meson.build, for example, have a SPDX-License-Identifier: tag,
> > > where
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 08:22:59PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:37:43PM +0100, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote:
> > Some meson.build, for example, have a SPDX-License-Identifier: tag,
> > where "MIT" is mentionned, applying (I think) to the file itself, and
> > the project
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:37:43PM +0100, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote:
> Some meson.build, for example, have a SPDX-License-Identifier: tag,
> where "MIT" is mentionned, applying (I think) to the file itself, and
> the project has an entry with a pair (license: 'MIT') applying to the
> data by
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:04:42PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> On 14.02.24 21:37, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote:
>[...]
> > I think that the correct way is to state 'X11' or 'MIT' or
> > whatever matches COPYING or COPYRIGHTS or whatever file explains the
> > license status and
On 14.02.24 21:37, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote:
Hi,
Some meson.build, for example, have a SPDX-License-Identifier: tag,
you're raising a good point. I've already been thinking about replacing
the repeated long lincense text all over the source files by tiny
SPDX-License-Identifier (possibly
Some meson.build, for example, have a SPDX-License-Identifier: tag,
where "MIT" is mentionned, applying (I think) to the file itself, and
the project has an entry with a pair (license: 'MIT') applying to the
data by itself.
But, for example, xcbproto has a license with a (classical, for me)
