Dmg: > Following this rational, would it be possible to recommend something in the > line of: > BEGIN_LICENSE > This file is licensed under the <SPDX_LICENSE_IDENTIFIER> > For more information see URL-TO-SPDX-WEB-SITE-WITH-iNFO > END_LICENSE > that makes three things explicit: > > * It says where the license info in -file is (BEGIN, END_LICENSE) > * It explicitly states the file is licensed under the given licence > * It says where to get more information to understand what it means.
> Jack's way of doing it, by just naming the license feels too cryptic to me if > I am reading the header, and does not explicitly state it is the license > under which the file is made available to others >From a programmer's perspective I think the "cryptic" approach is FAR >superior. There are lots of tools that can quickly examine files and return >text with the pattern "SPDX-License-Identifier: ", and other tools that can >trivially process the stuff after it. The above alternative is more work to >process, and humans don't like unnecessary work :-). If you want more boilerplate with the goal of enforceability, you might try a format that's trivial to process, e.g.: SPDX-License-Notice: This file is licensed under the following license(s): SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT SPDX-License-More-Information: http://wiki.spdx.org/ --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
