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

  // SPDX-License-
  Identifier: GPL-2.0-

on narrow screens.  With U+2011 in the license ID (but not the tag),
you'd get:

  // SPDX-License-

which I think is easier to read.


[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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Spdx-tech mailing list

Reply via email to