Dear Philip Odence, In message <ce743159.d5166%pode...@blackducksoftware.com> you wrote: > LICENSE ID > I think I'm on the same page as Daniel. From "SPDX-License-Identifier: > MIT" someone ignorant of SPDX can infer/guess at the meaning, but you can > imagine one liners (like Bradley's suggestion "License: > spdx-license=IDENTIFIER") that would be more explicit from a human > perspective and equally easy for a machine to recognize.
Is this really so? The (one-line_ license tag in a file that is part of a bigger software project is actually already redundant information, just condensed to the minimally needed information and presented in a format that is easy to process automatically. It has never been my understanding or intention that this should be the _only_ information about license terms for the project - as is, you will always need some README that explains how hte project as a whole is licensed, and how individual files (which may come, for example, dual-licensed, or liensed under a different, but compatible license) are marked as such. But this is global information that should be presented just once, and it should be not necessary to repeat any of that in the per-file license tags. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de We see things not as they are, but as we are. - H. M. Tomlinson _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
