Hi Bradley and Trevor -- thanks for the proposed edits. I think you're
right that what's in the current draft can be clarified.
I haven't had a chance yet to review in detail along with the other
comments over the past couple of days, but I'm hoping to go through them
this weekend or early next week. I'll circle back to the list for further
review after incorporating the various feedback into the pages.

Thanks to everyone who's taken an initial look through these.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> wrote:

> Steve, what do you think of these proposed improvements?
> Proposed rewrite for /ids:
>      WHY use SPDX IDs?
>      Sure, you've done what's necessary already by putting a full license
>      statement in your repository.  But you make code reuse even easier by
>      adding this info tersely to every file, so others can determine easily
>      which licenses apply to a file.  You'll reduce license clutter in
>      source code comments, eliminate error-prone parsing of license
> headers,
>      and decrease confusion by using the SPDX License List.
> Proposed rewrite For ids/why:
>     SPDX IDs make code reuse easier.
>     Putting your license notice a top-level LICENSE.txt file is the bare
>     minimum needed to properly license your code.  You'll make it easier
> for
>     those to reuse your code with a simple 'cp FILE /new/project' if you
> add
>     an SPDX ID to every file in your repository.  An SPDX ID is located
>     within each source code or documentation file, and follows that file
>     into downstream projects, making license identification easier.
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 08:14:30PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > > I suggest modifying the tutorial at https://spdx.org/ids to address
> > > the issue head-on, with perhaps a explanation on why you would carry
> > > license information in individual files at all.  The *only* reason
> > > it's useful to do so is in case the file gets separated from its
> > > larger work.
> W. Trevor King wrote at 21:33 (PDT) on Thursday:
> > This point is already addressed in [1] with:
> >   SPDX IDs make code reuse easier.
> >
> >   If your project only has license info in a top-level LICENSE.txt
> >   file, it's harder for others to reuse your code.
> This is not on the main page, which leaves it in TL;DR for most readers (if
> the goal here is to make the "ids" page make the case on its own).  Also,
> the existing text overstates the issue and actually gives the opposite
> impression -- that somehow there is a licensing problem if you don't do
> file-by-file licensing inventory.
> I redrafted below two proposals above to give the idea of what I'm talking
> about.
> The key issue is that when this kind of advice is given, it's important to
> be clear this useful improved labeling, and *not* that there is a licensing
> problem if you don't do it.  Too much of the rhetoric around licensing
> labeling gives that wrong impression, so it's really useful to mitigate
> that
> wrong impression where we can.  Overstating the issue only serves to make
> SPDX look pedantic and alarmist.
> --
> Bradley M. Kuhn
> Pls. support of the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
> https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Cell: +1.202.641.3047  Skype: 12026413047
Spdx-tech mailing list

Reply via email to