David> 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 David> From a programmer's perspective I think the "cryptic" approach is FAR David> superior. There are lots of tools that can quickly examine files and David> return text with the pattern "SPDX-License-Identifier: ", and other David> tools that can trivially process the stuff after it. The above David> alternative is more work to process, and humans don't like unnecessary David> work :-). When you say "programmer" who do you mean? The author of the software, the one who is thinking about using the file, or a large organization who wants to scan massive amounts of code? -- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org/ http://silvernegative.com/ dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
