[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal

From: ng0
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 22:05:32 +0100 (CET)

Thanks for looking into the thread.

I've started applying patches to master, and it's rather easy.
I will document how to proceed, but as FSFE puts it, it should be
easy to do automatically. I'm just learning to apply it and we have
some files which need comments or pose questions.

I don't have my notes with me right now, but the apparmor files
are one example.

Do we just cc0/0bsd everything which is small enough?

Then there's lynX' affery code, which has no copyleft/right statement.
When I can find people to ask, I'll CC them.

It's not important right now, but in the long run I think having clear
machine and human readable licensing is important.

How we apply it here, can best be documented in code and
documentation once I'm done with it (might be delayed for some

2019-01-16 16:48 GMT+00:00 Christian Grothoff<address@hidden>:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> GNUnet-developers mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

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