Eric Blake writes:
> Speaking of tools, should we include SPDX tags alongside the full text
> of all our licenses, as that is yet another thing that aids
> license-checking tools?
>
> https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/appendix-V-using-SPDX-short-identifiers-in-source-files/
I'm not a big fan of d
Eric Blake wrote:
> Speaking of tools, should we include SPDX tags alongside the full text
> of all our licenses, as that is yet another thing that aids
> license-checking tools?
If there is a GNU policy on this, I would follow it.
Personally I think there is little point to it. SPDX arose in the
On 6/4/21 1:25 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
Speaking of tools, should we include SPDX tags alongside the full text
of all our licenses, as that is yet another thing that aids
license-checking tools?
That's not a job I'd care to take on, for reasons I discussed for tzdb
last year (see the last paragra
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 10:03:04PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> * There are many tools for copyright and license checking [2] and we make
> their job easier by avoiding unclear situations regarding what is
> "nontrivial".
> So, I added copyright and license notices to these files.
>
> [1
This series of patches puts into the source files (in lib/ and build-aux/)
the license notices that match the module descriptions.
What to do with tiny files that, so far, have no copyright notice?
The Maintainers' Guide [1] allows to omit the copyright notice for "trivial"
files.
I find it reason
