comments inline below
On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> wrote: > I wasn't at the SPDX meetings at LinuxCon last month, but multiple > people approached me at the conference to ask my opinion on the issue, > with regard to file-by-file license notice inventory, if I felt the > text: > spdx-license=IDENTIFIER > > would be adequate. I'm told that dmg suggested that it'd be better to > say something like: > > "License of this file is: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER" > > and while I agreed with dmg, but I further suggested: > > "License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER" > > would be adequate. > > However, I don't see anything about this documented in these minutes: > > Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 14:37 (EDT) on Thursday: >> http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-25 these minutes are for the legal team meeting on 9/25 during which I did a brief recap of the various meetings that occurred (a full day's worth) at LinuxCon. Naturally, there is more focus on the content for the meeting that I led (having to do with the license matching guidelines). I don't believe there are minutes specifically from the other meetings, but am sure it will be also summarized during the monthly general call tomorrow, so I'd encourage people to join that. > > I am posting about this now because I may be about to make a bombing-run > patch to one of Conservancy's member projects to add a license notice to > each file, and I'd be happy use that format if it's going to be an > official recommendation of the SPDX project. That is great news, Bradley! Obviously, there are a few details to sort out, but the support is very much appreciated. > > > However, I will have to register my complaint again that GPL-2.0 is a > *horrible* identifier for GPLv2-only, mainly because of how GPLv2§9 > works. Saying "GPL-2.0" to refer to GPLv2-only is misleading and > confusing and should be corrected. > yes, I actually agree. I have long thought that the short identifiers would be better served as: GPL-2.0+ and GPL-2.0-only And logged this as something to bring up, but we have been busy with trying to finish other tasks and it hasn't risen to the surface. Of course, the worry is that changing the short identifiers will screw up people who are already using the SPDX License List (we endeavored to try to never change them…) There is a good number of companies already using it and probably more than we even know of. In any case, if it is going to help reduce confusion or ambiguity and we can figure out a way to make sure this change is well documented, then we need to consider making the change. I will be sure to bring this up at the General Meeting tomorrow and on the next legal call (next Thursday) Cheers, Jilayne Lovejoy SPDX Legal Team lead lovejoyl...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
