> On Nov 4, 2021, at 3:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 08:15:40AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Tools consuming SPDX license identifiers benefit from having
>> the SPDX tag in its own comment, not embedded with the license
>> text. Move the tag to the first line.
>
> Do you have an example of such a tool which has problems ?
>
> AFAIK, guidance for adding SPDX tags merely says they should
> be in a comment near the top of the file.
>
> I wouldn't expect license scanners to care about the acutal
> comment syntax. Proper tools would be designed to scan for
> tags in *any* file format, so would be unlikely to be parsing
> the C code comments at all. Rather scanners would be just
> looking for the magic string "SPDX-License-Identifier" in
> the file. Use of comments is merely to stop the C compiler
> interpreting the tag.
>
> It makes sense to have the SPDX tag as the first thing in
> the file, but I don't see a compelling need to make it into
> its own dedicated opened + closed comment, separately from
> the license header comment.
The SPDX’s tools don’t require the proposed changes. Nor does
the SPDX standard which says that the lines can be anywhere in the
file. The reuse.software additions to this standard add additional
ways to mark binary files, but otherwise says the same thing.
The FreeBSD project has been marking files with SPDX tags for years
and has never once encountered this issue.
Warner
> Regards,
> Daniel
> --
> |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
> |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
> |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
>
>
