On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:50:23 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [CC += Steve] > - Just like some media documents, this file is dual licensed > with GPL and GFDL. As right now the GFDL SPDX definition is > bogus (as it doesn't tell anything about invariant parts), > let's not use SPDX here. Let's use, instead, the same test > as we have on media. The dual-licensing really can't be expressed with an SPDX tag? Because... [...] > +.. This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms > +.. of the GPL 2.0 or the GFDL 1.2+ license, at your option. Note that this > +.. dual licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a > +.. whole. > +.. > +.. a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > +.. modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > +.. published by the Free Software Foundation version 2 of > +.. the License. > +.. > +.. This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > +.. but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > +.. MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > +.. GNU General Public License for more details. > +.. > +.. Or, alternatively, > +.. > +.. b) Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this > +.. document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, > +.. Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software > +.. Foundation, with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts > +.. and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is available at > +.. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.html > +.. > +.. TODO: replace it to GPL-2.0 OR GFDL-1.2-or-later WITH no-invariant-sections ...adding all that boilerplate is kind of a bummer. At a minimum I'd want an ack from Steve (who wasn't copied) before applying this, but it would be better to add a bit more SPDX infrastructure to express this if possible. Thanks, jon
