[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:48:39 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0

On 1/12/19 6:43 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> We have a number of options here:
> 1. Do as pleroma does. cut down the license part of the header to the 
> necessary parts.
> 2. Add SPDX as an addition to our current header, no removal.
> 3. Look more closely into what Linux has done.
> 4. Ignore spdx.
> I'm in favor of 2 and would also go for 1 if people found it reasonable.

(1) would conflict with GNU maintainer guide. Against.
(2) Is very reasonable.
(3) Nah. We can think for ourselves.
(4) If you want to put in the effort, I would not discourage that. The
goals of machine-readable licenses are reasonable. I've tried myself
(and failed...) to make LibreJS work for Taler's JS code...  So adding
SPDX headers is a good idea, albeit probably not critical.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]