On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Wheeler, David A <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just to be clear, I’m a big fan of having a standard way to notate SPDX > licenses within source files. > > I just find it odd that < > http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/SPDX_Meta_Tags> and Eric S. > Raymond are currently using: > SPDX-License-Identifier: > when what comes after that is clearly a SPDX license *expression*, not > necessarily a license *identifier*. > What you're seeing is an artifact of timing. Specifically SPDX-License-Identifier emerged from the U-Boot project as a way of doing this about 3 years ago. We only introduced SPDX license expressions into the specification with 2.0 (ie. just this year). So the precent in the wild is to use SPDX-License-Identifier, which is found now in projects beyond U-Boot (ie. poco, opendataplane, etc.). This is what is documented on the WIKI page. > I think it should be this instead: > SPDX-License-Expression: > > I tried to briefly explain this in my tutorial at: > https://github.com/david-a-wheeler/spdx-tutorial/ Yup, reasoning is clear. Its now a question of impact to projects already adopted if change vs. adding alternate permitted identifier (SPDX-license-Expression) vs. leaving it as is. > > > Can identifying the in-source-marker also get a bug report in Bugzilla? > Done. :-) https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330 <https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330> Kate
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
