On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > No problem, Steve. I think this all looks great, but we definitely > need to be consistent. The advice we came up with in Appendix V was > pretty well vetted, so I think that’s safe to stay within those > boundaries. > > Along the same lines: this suggestion should NOT be added: “The MIT > and BSD-1-Clause are examples of license headrs that would not allow > this removal.”
Yeah, we don't need to talk about that at all if the mini-site pivots to the appendix V both/and approach. If we do that, should we update [1] to link examples using that approach? Currently neither of the two directly-linked examples includes the header boilerplate [2,3]. Also on the markup nits front, we may want to use U+2011 NON-BREAKING HYPHEN (and possibly include a font that supports it) to avoid breaks like: // SPDX-License- Identifier: GPL-2.0- or-later on narrow screens. With U+2011 in the license ID (but not the tag), you'd get: // SPDX-License- Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later which I think is easier to read. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://spdx.org/ids-where [2]: http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob_plain;f=README;hb=HEAD [3]: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/master/zephyr-env.sh -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
