J Lovejoy <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Richard, > > As you raised this concern and yet I’m noticing you continue to review > the patches and sign off, am I correct to assume that you don’t think > this is a big concern? > I was late to subscribe and am just catching up on the conversation here, so apologies if I missed earlier explanation, but I remember discussing this issue a while back on either -legal or -general (I'll look when I have a few more moments). On https://spdx.org/ids-how it currently says: > When a license defines a recommended notice to attach to files under > that license (sometimes called a "standard header"), the SPDX project > recommends that the standard header be included in the files, in > addition to an SPDX ID. > Additionally, when a file already contains a standard header or other > license notice, the SPDX project recommends that those existing notices > should not be removed. The SPDX ID is recommended to be used to > supplement, not replace, existing notices in files. > Like copyright notices, existing license texts and notices should be > retained, not replaced ‐ especially a third party's license notices. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B https://status.fsf.org/johns | https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <https://my.fsf.org/join>.
